Monday, March 27, 2017

Science Rules?

Many think that science provides the answer for everything. Should science rule when it comes to dealing with the many issues of our day? Let me put forward some thoughts on the subject of science so that you’ll have some perspective the next time you hear someone say something like this: “Well, it’s been scientifically proven that ______ (fill in the blank, such as, ‘global warming is real.’”) Let’s understand what’s behind such statements.

What Is Science?

Let’s start by defining “science.” In its purest sense “science” consists of performing a series observable and controlled experiments, analyzing the results, and determining whether the results support a hypothesis or theory. If they don’t, that hypothesis or theory is discarded as unproven and new hypotheses and theories emerge to be tested. Or the theory or hypothesis is modified based on the data. That, very briefly, is a simplified definition of science (or the scientific method) from a non-scientist.

If repeated experiments can’t be conducted, then careful observations are made of existing evidence, analysis performed, and conclusions drawn. The results and conclusions from the experiments or observations can undergo peer review and may be published so other scientists can study and comment on the methodology and conclusions.

Is Macroevolution Science?

A lot of data are put forth under the name of “science” but they don’t have repeated experiments to verify their status as a theory, or the conclusions don’t agree with the evidence (or lack thereof). A good example of that is the theory of macroevolution – the belief that one species can evolve into another. An example might be the belief that dolphins evolved from an earlier land-based animal. Teaching such beliefs is not really scientific (in its purest sense) for a number of reasons:

First, there can be no repeated observable experiments because we are dealing with historical events that took place over eons.

Second, in light of the inability to perform experiments, the scientist then observes the subject and draws conclusions from his observations and analysis. In the case of the dolphin, examination of the animal plus the lack of any transitional animals in the fossil record leads you to the obvious conclusion that it was designed to be an aquatic creature. It could never have been a land animal.

Third, drawing such an evolutionary conclusion from observations is not sustainable because the conclusions aren’t supported by the data per my second point above. This reveals an agenda rather than unbiased scientific inquiry. So the theory of macroevolution can’t be considered real science because scientists ignore the obvious attributes of animals and totally disregard the fact that no transitional species have been found in the fossil record. The observations don’t fit their agenda and preconceived notions, so they are ignored.

The Big Hoax

Macroevolution is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the human race since the beginning of time. Looking at the complexity of God’s creation (such as the human body), you can’t help but marvel at what a masterpiece of engineering it is. Yet scientists and academics continue to ignore the obvious evidence of an intelligent designer. When will they ever learn?

Is the Big Bang Scientific?

The reasons outlined above regarding macroevolution apply to the Big Bang. The Big Bang starts with a dense bundle of matter that explodes and spreads throughout the universe. The big question is, where did that matter come from? Since a law of nature states that matter can neither be created or destroyed, that matter didn’t just magically appear. Hawking claims just that, totally ignoring the Law of Mass Conservation. Let’s remember that Hawking is a genius but he isn’t infallible and is an atheist.

The correct answer is that God created that matter and then set things into motion by way of the Big Bang or some other event.

Can We Consider Anything Truly Scientifically Proven?

One thing about science is that new theories appear and then are later discarded as new discoveries are made through research. That’s what makes science so interesting – it’s always changing as more knowledge becomes available. But when people say something is “scientifically proven” you still need to have some degree of skepticism. Why? Because today’s scientific “fact” is tomorrow’s discredited theory.

Look at how science has handled the egg. When I was a kid, eggs were good for you. We should eat them frequently as a good source of protein. Later in my life I was told to limit my consumption of eggs because of cholesterol concerns. Eggs are bad for you. More recent studies have shown that eggs are once again good for you. So much for “scientifically proven.”

Another aspect of scientific research is the analysis of results. Erroneous conclusions can be drawn from otherwise sound research and good data. For example, the matching of certain data can result in scientists concluding a cause-effect relationship where, in fact, none exists. We are seeing some of that, I believe, with the climate change discussion.

Science Has Become Our God

Because of all the advances in technology, science has become our god. We trust in science more than we do the Word of God, the Bible. We expect science to answer all our questions, solve all our problems, and make life better for all. In fact science and technology have answered some questions, solved some problems, and have made life better in many ways. But these are of the material world. Important as the material world may be to us, there’s another world that’s far more important and lasts forever. I’m referring to the spiritual realm.

Science should not become your substitute for God. Let’s not ignore the spiritual aspect of life but seek God and his grace. Science is limited in what it can do, and its conclusions are constantly changing as new research becomes available. We have to look beyond the material to the supernatural to be complete human beings.


Both science and the Bible have their places. The Bible isn’t a scientific text, yet does provide us with considerable insight concerning life and the universe that science isn’t equipped to do. Regarding the creation stories in the Bible, we don’t have to take them literally to believe they are communicating God’s truth. They very well may have been stories designed by God to pass on truths to primitive people who had minimal scientific knowledge. The main thing we should be taking away from this discussion is that God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and science is trying to figure out how he did it.

No comments: