We of the 21st century somewhat pride ourselves as being truly grounded in science. Because of that we think that science is the answer for everything. But, can science explain everything? Still, more, can science be trusted? These are important questions and depending on how you answer them will tell how you approach everyday life situations.
Question number one
Before we can delve into a good answer to question number one, we must decide what real science is. Most people think that science is what scientists do. That is a quite circular in its reasoning. Just because a scientist performs an act does not make that act a performance of science. Just because a person does an act of science does not make that person a practicing scientist.
So then, what is science? Science originally meant “knowledge”, or the gaining of knowledge. The way knowledge was gained was by proposing a situation that at any given time would produce a given outcome every time it was presented. In other words, every time this “experiment” was performed the outcome would be the same. If it did not come out to be the same results the knowledge would be false “knowledge”. In essence, real science produced “truth”. It was “truth” that could be repeated every time the experiment was repeated.
With the definition just stated, science could give an explanation for things put to its test.
Problem with question one
In question one, science deals with problems that can be empirically tested. That means that the things being tested can be observed with our senses and the results can be measured and recorded to be assessed by others. Today, however, there are a lot of “scientific facts”, which can not and have not ever been observed or repeated, which are called “science”. The real question is, “If something cannot be empirically tested to see if it produces the same result as ‘true science’ says it will, can it give an explanation that is truly scientific?”
If we allow this approach to be considered science, then we have changed the definition of what science is. And that is what has happened in the world of science today. Many call this forensic science. Much of forensic science is founded on empirical science. Some of forensic science is built on assumptions. The empirical part is fine.
The assumption part is questionable. When scientists begin assuming, they inject a preconceived platform into the equation. This preconception will color the end results, without doubt. So, in this approach we are stepping outside the realms of true science. Because of this, explanations can be open to question. Because of predetermined viewpoints, results may have nothing to do with the real truth. When this happens, science should be questioned.
Example
For the past thirty years or so, science has been finding viable proteins and DNA in fossils which were supposed to be tens and hundreds of millions of years old. True science proves that DNA and proteins break down at a certain rate which can be empirically measured and is consistent in its rate of breaking down. The true science says that DNA and proteins degrade at a rate such that within 10,000 to 100,000 years there will be no trace of them.
Yet, when some scientists are presented with this fact they still maintain that the fossil is millions of years old. Now, if true science demands that the finding can not be older than between 10,000 and 100,000 years old, can the person who denies this scientific fact be considered a scientist?
Yet, there are many who do just that. And they are most of which are in positions of teaching the next generation “real” science. Just because someone seems to be in the place of authority does not make them right, especially if they deny truth.
Example Two
Science has long proved that particles(and thus atoms) do not attract one another, so as to clump together. In fact, in a vacuum particles tend to bounce off one another and disperse even more.
Yet, some scientists say that that is how the stars and the planets formed. Experiments have shown over and over that a clump of matter must be meters in diameter before it can exert enough gravity to attract another particle of matter. This has been proved empirically time and time again.
Yet, there are so called scientists who declare, and believe, that that is how the universe as we see it today came about. First, they believe that something came from nothing(a singularity). Then the “somethings”, which were smaller than atoms were attracted to one another to form atoms, and then the atoms were attracted to one another to form hydrogen and on and on until hydrogen atoms attracted one another until they came together and formed stars.
This has never been empirically proved and the concept has been empirically disproved. These, so called scientists, are teaching your children. And you are paying them handsomely to do it. Can you trust the science these people are teaching?
The Question
Can science explain everything? If we are honest, we know that science can not explain everything. Science can point us in the right direction, if we are willing to accept its findings. But those findings will always be filtered through our world view. There are only two world views if we are honest with ourselves.
There is the worldview that most so called scientists hold today, and that is the humanistic-materialistic worldview. This worldview is an anti-theistic worldview that says there is no Creator, or God, and that matter is all there is. Everything that we perceive comes about because of the properties of this matter and that is all that there is.
The other worldview is the Biblical worldview. It begins with the foundation that the creation as recorded in the Bible is how this universe began and how it operates. Scientists who operate in this worldview have the same facts and laws of science as the other worldview scientists have. However, they derive their motivation from and compare their findings to the truths set forth in the Bible.
It is not so much a question of “Can science be trusted?” as it is a question of “Can the worldview of scientists be trusted?” If we were to compare the findings of the two groups of scientists to batters average on a baseball team, it might look something like this.
Humanist-materialistic .010
Biblical worldview .900
Conclusion
Let me propose a new question.
If you were to choose how your children were to be taught science, which world view would you choose?
