Let’s Be Honest About What Science Is

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2 comments

What is science? The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.” Linus Pauling wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.”

Does this fit with today’s use of science in many cases?

According to Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology, “A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.”

It's been said many times that creation is not scientific because it has as part of its core a Creator—a supernatural being which forces the idea out of the realms of science. Is this true? Is science only concerned with natural processes? What if secular scientists are shutting their ears to the truth simply because it leads to a spiritual place? We're all familiar with the mainstream's attempts at silencing creation theory and anyone that seems to remotely support it. What if the only way to explain the universe and life is the very thing they've decided ahead of time is not true?

I personally believe the evolutionist will make claims like this simply because it makes it appear to the misinformed or unthinking to embarrass those who claim to believe in creation as naive or childish people. It says, “You're too stupid to discuss this with REAL scientists because your “theory” isn't even REAL science.” What’s interesting to note is that when you read articles about why creation theory is not scientific, if you didn’t know they were writing about creationism, you could easily assume they’re discussing evolutionism. You see, the two are similar in their weaknesses concerning science. However, the creationist is willing to let the evidence lead them to the truth while the secularist is unwilling to allow the evidence to take them to a place that leads to the supernatural. As Dr. Jason Lisle said, “As an analogy, consider people studying the construction of a car. Can you imagine one of them arguing, ‘We must assume this car came about by the forces of nature acting over time with no designer as we study how it works, even though we know this isn’t true?’ Such an approach would be absurd. Yet some people use effectively the same approach when studying God’s creation.”

So is the beginning of the universe something science can tell us about then? Well, I suggest that the entire category of “science” concerning origins is a philosophical one more than a scientific one. What about Darwinian evolution? Is this “science?” Many would say it's not only science but settled science. I suggest it's neither. It's a philosophically driven interpretation of the scientific data. We gather information and, based on our philosophical foundation, form conclusions. The evidence for/against Darwinism is the same evidence for/against creationism. They are both conclusions based on one's worldview. Ken Ham said in his debate with Bill Nye that we all use the same evidence—creationist and evolutionist alike but how we interpret that evidence differs. THAT is the debate—not the evidence itself but how it is viewed.

So can the origins question(s) be based on natural processes as the secularists claim? The origin of nature could not have occurred via natural processes since natural processes only exist in nature. If it is true that everything which has a beginning requires a cause and science has told us the universe and, therefore, nature, had a beginning, it also had a cause. This is similar to Aristotle's Prime Mover. If everything has a cause, if you go back far enough to the beginning of time, something must have initiated everything. This, by definition, is outside the scope of naturalism. Something had to start it all which means that something, by definition, is beyond nature which means it's not science if we hold to the secularist's view. Nature by definition could not have originated via natural processes because natural processes exist only in nature. Are you tracking with me?

“It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality.”—Dr. Behe

This statement by Dr. Behe is it in a nutshell. The evolutionist wants to make the rules up as he goes so as to make his argument the only one that is even allowed on the table. I feel that this sort of censorship, which is exactly what it is, is unhealthy for scientific discovery and stunts the intellectual advancement of a society. Many of the brightest minds science has boasted were creationists. In fact, nearly every major branch of science, including biology, was founded by a creationist. Science, to me, is a thirst for understanding how our awesome Creator made this place and how He causes it to function. I'm filled with awe at the idea of life. The complexity of the human body alone is something you could study your entire life and still know less about it than you don't know. What of the universe and its mysteries? To begin your study of life with the exclusion of the Author of it means you cannot find the truth. To search for an answer to how life began by stating unambiguously from the start that a Designer will not be accepted as the source is not science and, frankly, not honest. Evolutionism (the belief in a single common ancestor that changed over time to give us the current biodiversity of the planet) is not science. It excludes an answer prior to investigation—an answer which many believe is the correct one.

Science is the “search for truth.” Since adherents of evolution from a single common ancestor are not honestly searching for truth, it is invalidated as science.

“Come let us reason together...”---God


Unknown said...

I see this was posted back in March, but just showed up in my facebook feed a couple weeks ago, so I am commenting now...

I have never quite understood why some denominations of Christianity shun science, as I agree with Steve in that science seems to be a confirmation of the laws of nature set in place by God. While I am not a doctor, I have studied anatomy and physiology to the extent that I feel it is impossible for the human body to have evolved to this level without some form of divine intervention. This kind of complexity could not have happened by accident.

Another interesting irony I find in all of this, is the book most Evolutionists rely on and a basis for many atheists is "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. If you look at Darwin's history, he openly admitted that when he wrote the book he fully believed in God, the creator, as First Cause! It wasn't until later in life that Darwin termed himself Agnostic, but he never identified himself as atheist.

How about this... what if we called it Evolution through Divine Intervention? We can't deny that evolution happens in different species, it happens because we were designed this way. Seems simple and clear to me.

JD70 said...

Shawn I appreciate your comment. And thanks for posting.

When you write this. I encourage you to think what it means, "How about this... what if we called it Evolution through Divine Intervention?"

If you are discussing marco-evolution (molecules to man evolution) this has never been observed in reality. Ever. Sure we see it in science books and the like but it really seems to be nothing more an a fairy tale. We are not against science but against something people have put their faith in and they do not realize it is faith and they are now calling it science. (I want to be clear; I am discussing people who believe in evolution not people who believe in creation). These people are toting a belief, evolution as science when it cannot fall in the realm of science. Origins are not Observable, Testable or Repeatable. Also, if people are honest with themselves evolution is not either.

If you mean creatures changing into other creatures within their own species, or family, well . . . that is completely different and observable.

Lions and Tigers are in the Large Cat kind and can make a baby together called a Liger.

A horse and a zebra can make a baby called a Zorse.

A bottle-nose dolphin and a killer whale can make a baby as well called a Wolphin. I encourage you to ahead and look them up. They are very real and this does not promote macro-evolution in the least but promotes exactly the opposite to be true. In reality it seems that things are not evolving but de-evolving. I hope this makes sense.