Science As Belief System – Is Science Truth

Today science holds such a high position in the esteem system of learned people. It is through the discoveries of science that we enjoy many of the comforts and technologies that we have in our everyday lives. Unfortunately we have begun to exalt all science to the point that science as a belief system has begun to rival religion and philosophy. But as we continue to praise the results of science we must at some point come to the question that asks, “Is science truth?”. Or is it just a platform from which we extrapolate truth?

Types of science

There are two types of science which are practiced today. One is observational science. This is the true science in which a hypothesis is stated and then experiments are presented which are basically intended to disprove or falsify the stated hypothesis. If there are no means that can be proposed that might falsify the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is rejected as being a scientific statement or proposition. This is known as pure science. Given the same hypothesis and same set experiment, the same results will be forth coming every time. For instance, distilled water when heated to 212 degrees F at sea level will evaporate, or produce steam. So far, every time that an experiment done following these parameters has proved the hypothesis true. Observational science is repeatable and produces the same result every time.

The other type of science is historical science, or sometimes called forensic science. Historical science is an occurrence of the past and is non repeatable. Because it is non repeatable it can not be falsified. Because it can not be falsified it can not be considered pure or real science. Because it can not be repeated it must be accompanied with some bias as to how some facets of the observed finished product came about. The bias applied will come from a recorded history of the fact or from one’s knowledge or opinion of what happened. There will always be room for question unless there is an eye witness to the process which occurred. Even in forensic science the eye witness takes precedence over the imagined process derived from the imagined scenario of the scientist.

Is science truth?

Having defined the parameters of science can we say definitively that science is truth? In the case of observational science we can with great certainty say that science is truth. But to include all sciences as being under the umbrella of truth might be stretching “the truth”. There was a time when known science believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that everything orbited around the Earth. From how and what they observed the scientists of that time thought that they were correct and true. But as means to observe the universe in which we reside improved it was proved that every thing did not orbit around the Earth. In fact they found out that every thing did not orbit around the sun. So, if observational science can be shown to not be true or not fully truthful, how much more so for historical or forensic science in which the bias of the observer must be injected.

So, it might be somewhat foolish to take science as wholly true in every pronouncement.

What about scientific laws

Scientific laws are observations which have never varied and remain consistent no matter the situation or experiment. There are the laws of thermodynamics, the first and second laws; there is the law of bio genesis; there are the laws of logic; there is the law of gravity; there is the law of cause and effect. These laws have been tested over and over and have proved faithful through every test. They remain true until or unless someone proposes an experiment in which they may be proved untrue and thereby falsified.

Examples

The laws having been stated, let us compare a couple of examples of forensic science and see which fits the definition of real science. The two contrasting scientific “beliefs” are evolution(along with the big bang) and creation science.

To determine which one is most likely scientific let us look at the facts. Remember to be truly scientific it must be repeatable and observable. As for creation, I think we all would agree that that was a one time event and it can not be repeated. There was no human there to observe it, so we must take it by faith, in other words we believe it. It is therefore a belief bias. But, does it defy the laws of science. For instance, the law of cause and effect says that the cause is always greater than the effect. The universe is the effect and the Creator is the cause. Those who believe in creation believe that the Creator was omnipotent, all powerful. The law is satisfied.

In contrast, the big bang, says that all that we observe in the universe came from nothing. (Of course they deny this, but they can not tell us what the cause that brought about the big bang is.) The law of cause and effect is not obeyed. The big bang nullifies the law. Therefore, the big bang is falsified.

Continuing with evolution. Evolution says that the beginning of life was a simple blob that somehow came into being by accident and was able to replicate itself and continue to do so. Through millenia of replicating and growing more complicated through mutations and natural selection human beings came about. Consider the second law of thermodynamics. It states that in a system, that entropy will always increase. Entropy is a state of disorder. The law states that this is always true. This second law, when applied to information in a system, remains true. It is observationally proved that from one generation to the following that information in a living system declines. It is scientifically proved that evolution from molecules to humans is impossible. Evolution can not overcome the law.

The creation view states that all creation was fully loaded with all the information necessary for life. But something happened that caused a continual drain on that information from generation to generation. This fits what we observe scientifically in the world around us.

Conclusion

There is much more to be learned on this subject and we shall pursue that subject in the days and years ahead. But as to the question “Is science truth?”, we can not with great confidence say that science has the final word on truth. Science is a great tool in the search for truth, but just as a hammer can be used to build a house it can be used to damage or destroy it, too.

Science as a belief system is much championed by those who wish to exalt human intellect. But belief in science does away with the foundation of what real science should be. Real science lets the facts lead to truth. To bias the facts to fit a predetermined conclusion is to define pseudo-science. Pseudo science is by definition a misleading science at best and at worst a determined effort to lie against the truth.

Science will never have the final word on truth.

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *