The Basis for True Science

WHAT IS SCIENCE? How do we determine if it leads to truth? Whose truth does it represent? Stripped down, science essentially means “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” Is true science an elitist or Gnostic pursuit? In other words, can it be understood by only a handful of people. How do we do science? Although the average person will never master science to any degree,  there is a desperate need for non-technical arguments that stand on their own merits, independent of any technical work, and that are at least somewhat comprehensible.

It is important to note that all humans are “scientists” to some degree. In fact, scientific study encompasses more than we realize on the surface—it touches on the philosophical, biological, social, and cultural aspects of life as well. Without realizing it, throughout the day we tend to carefully observe and analyze many aspects of the physical universe. We constantly make “mental notes” of what we observe, and we use those notes to build a conceptual model (or worldview) of how it all works. Each of us, regardless of our mental capacity, constantly acquires and analyzes data in the pursuit of meaning and cause-and-effect.

Stephen Hawking established two sets of questions to be considered when applying science to life and its “big questions.” The first batch of queries focuses on the “hows” of existence:

  • How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?
  • How does the universe behave?
  • What is the nature of reality?
  • Where did this all come from?
  • Did the universe need a creator?

Hawking’s second set of questions relates to the “whys” of existence:

  • Why is there something rather than nothing?
  • Why do we exist?
  • Why this particular set of scientific laws and not some other?

Neil deGrasse Tyson says—

[Science] is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adhering to a simple set of rules: test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test; reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence wherever it leads; and question everything. Accept these terms and the cosmos is yours.

The “Religion” of Science

Unfortunately, many empiricists believe science and religion are locked in a bitter and contentious war for our minds. Stephen Weinberg, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, said, “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion. Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact by our greatest contribution to civilisation [sic].” It has been argued that religion cannot cure disease; it cannot usefully explain where humans came from, the origin of life, or how the universe came to be; it is said to be unable to explain volcanoes, earthquakes, thunderstorms, hurricanes, epidemics, allergies, birth defects, diseases, and so on. Scientists dogmatically claim that religion cannot usefully explain one single thing. Of course, there is no basis for a categorical denial of religion’s usefulness in explaining the physical realm.

Consider the following position:

Science is an unstoppable force for human development that will deliver answers to our many questions about the universe, and solve many, if not all, of our human problems: disease, energy, pollution, poverty. At some stage in the future, science will be able to explain everything, and answer all our needs.

It would seem the above is a very narrow viewpoint. I suggest the following as a more accurate and equitable concept: (1) religion is based on faith; (2) science is based on faith; (3) both religion and science give us knowledge of the unseen world; (4) all knowledge of the unseen world must be based on faith; therefore (5) science is a religion.

To a great extent, today’s culture holds the dramatically one-dimensional opinion that what we see is all there is and, accordingly, nature is all we need to explain everything. Charles Colson, in his book How Now Shall We Live? describes this as the philosophy of naturalism. We can define naturalism as the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural, metaphysical, or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe; the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws and nothing else. Philosophical naturalism is a special instance of the wider concept of philosophy, taking the subject matter and method of philosophy to be continuous with the subject matter and method of other disciplines, especially the natural sciences.

Naturalism is essentially synonymous with humanism. Of course, both schools of thought exclude the supernatural by definition. Interestingly, naturalism claims to answer the how and the why of existence, holding itself as the cultural authority to rule on what is, why it is, and what it means. It can be considered an ism because it lives as a tendency, a stance, a frame of mind, a sequence of mental habits and reflexes. Naturalist philosophers believe no other intellectual enterprise—except pure mathematics—has such reliable and effective means for defining and explaining the universe. Typically, and to the contrary, making sense of human life is the principal business of organized religion. Methodological naturalism is a subset of naturalism, involving a cognitive approach to reality that ignores the metaphysical realm.

Naturalistic scientists try to give the impression that they are fair-minded and objective, thereby hinting that it is “religious” people who are subjective and biased in favor of their personal beliefs. This is basically a ruse; naturalism is as much a philosophy, a worldview, a personal belief system, as any religion. Of course, to claim that observable nature is all there is or ever will be is particularly narrow. This reminds me of Carl Sagan’s trademark statement (at the beginning of his PBS series Cosmos), “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” This is remarkably similar to the Christian liturgical recitation, “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.” I make this comparison merely to show the “religiosity” of naturalism.

The Big Bang theory seems to destroy naturalism, for the naturalist claims that reality is an unbroken sequence of cause-and-effect which can be traced back endlessly. From a purely scientific vantage point, however, the Big Bang suggests a sudden discontinuity in the chain of events. By its very definition, science can trace events back in time only to a certain point—the moment of an originating explosion. It is at this point in time that science reaches an abrupt break; an absolute time barrier. This concept presented Einstein with a dilemma which he wrestled with. He kept tweaking his equations in hopes of avoiding the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. Astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, believed science had reached its limit, adding it would never be possible to discover whether the “agent of creation” was the God of the Bible or some familiar force of physics. Yet the laws of physics contradict the concept of something from nothing. Matter cannot create itself.

Unfortunately, scientists and educators ignore the perplexing philosophical and religious implications of the Big Bang. In defense of their passing the buck, they say We only deal with science. Discussion of the ultimate cause behind the Big Bang is dismissed as philosophy. Some scientists attempt to sidestep the physics and mathematical implications of the Big Bang and simply say that matter is eternal after all. Of course, they provide no logical or scientific basis for this claim. Carl Sagan tried to bury this ultimate puzzle in a series of events wherein the universe has been expanding and contracting over an infinite amount of time. Sagan’s speculation runs up against the basic laws of physics. Even an oscillating universe would use up the available energy in each cycle, and it would eventually run down. The second law of thermodynamics, the law of decay, negates the notion of an eternal universe.

We should not oppose science with religion; we should oppose bad science with better science!

The Science of Religion

What does observation and induction have to do with discovering the existence of God? Everything! In 1927, the expanding of the universe was observed by astronomer Edwin Hubble. Looking through a 100-inch telescope at California’s Mount Wilson Observatory, Hubble discovered a “red shift” in the light from every observable galaxy, which meant that those galaxies were moving away from us. This was a direct confirmation of General Relativity—the universe appears to be expanding from a single point of origin in the distant past. Einstein reviewed this data and decided he could no longer support the idea of an eternal physical universe. He described the cosmological constant as “the greatest blunder of my life.” Einstein believed God was pantheistic (God is the universe). In any event, he thought perhaps his theory of General Relativity was strong evidence for a theistic God.

If the universe had a beginning, then the universe had a cause. This is the cosmological argument of creation. In logical form, the argument states:

  1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. This is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Francis Bacon (the father of modern science) believed true knowledge is knowledge by causes. David Hume, a skeptic relative to God, could not deny the Law of Causality. He eventually stated, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition that something could arise without a cause.” There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang.
  2. The universe had a beginning. If the universe did not have a beginning then no cause was needed. However, science and Christian theology admit the world began abruptly in violation of the laws of science.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. If the universe had a beginning, in other words if it is not eternal, then there must be an underlying cause. Robert Jastrow said, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world… the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

Faith—when it is truly faith rather than a mere intellectual assent to some proposition or other—will always seek to enter into a fuller and deeper knowledge and understanding of that which matters most to it. Trevor Hart, in Faith Thinking: The Dynamics of Christian Theology, says faith is concerned with what he calls the internal coherence of its own story or gospel. This involves the ability of educators in a subject to connect and align available resources to carry out the advancement of its theory, engage in collective learning, and use that learning to provide richer educational opportunity for those who continue the study of said theory.

Faith, by its very definition, is a critical reflection of knowledge and not a mere reiteration of some established body of truths. If our intention is genuinely to know the truth, and to allow that truth to shape our thinking and our speaking, then we must approach faith (or, if you prefer, religion) from an interrogative and outward-looking vantage point rather than with a dogmatic or individualistic bend. There is an unfortunate dogmatic warfare between science and Christianity that, if allowed to fester, blocks the science of Christianity from coming to the surface. Zoologist and New Atheist Richard Dawkins insists that all scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, but myths and faiths are not. He likens belief in God to belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or fairies and elves.

J.P. Moreland, a modern-day philosopher from Biola University, believes Christianity is a matter of knowledge, which is supported by logical reasoning and empirical evidence. Faith is not mere emotion or opinion. Personally, I believe all truth is God’s truth. Whatever science proves, it will not contradict the Word of God. The Christian faith is a source of much original knowledge (through its many scientists) that served as a unifying vision, leading to advancement of Western civilization, education, and science. Today, that information (especially its origin) has been pushed indoors as part of a private belief that supposedly has no place in public forums. The problem is not with science, as most of what we consider to be fundamental scientific principles today were established by Bible-believing Christians. The key issue is the philosophical stance of scientism; one of the three major planks of naturalism, the other two being determinism and materialism.

Faith in Something!

Why should we consider belief in spontaneous creation (something from nothing), Darwinism, mutations leading to “new” species, and the Big Bang (as it is taught in public school) to be belief by faith? Because these “theories” go beyond the reach of scientific method. There is a huge difference between “historical” science and that which can be proved through experimental methods. Accordingly, when a “scientist” speaks of the origin of life or the universe, he or she is postulating something that is outside the scope of scientific theory. Unfortunately, many evolutionists refuse to admit that their idea regarding the origin of life and matter is a faith-based system. They argue that science will some day prove their theory. They base this on their comment that we only know part of reality at present, but science will provide all answers some time in the future.

I propose that the Christian and the atheist both live by faith. Each has his or her way of thinking, which is essentially their worldview. It is what they believe about life. Some scientists hold the view that matter and energy are eternal. They believe in a state of equilibrium before our ever-expanding universe burst forth from a very hot, very dense singularity. Of course, there is a contradiction within that very core belief: a state of harmony or equilibrium ceased to be so, bursting forth in a chaotic expression of energy and matter, without intervention. This “theory” has never been proven, yet it is being taught in our public schools as though it is true beyond doubt—that the only explanation for the origin of life is the evolution of “molecules to man.”

If everything was in a “neutral” state of equilibrium before the Big Bang, what made the Big Bang explode? If you believe in the Big Bang from the standpoint of modern science—eternal matter and energy sprang forth from an infinitely dense speck of matter—then you are postulating that the powerful inward pull of gravity somehow overcame its own force and went BANG! Moreover, you believe this tremendously huge and powerful explosion slowed down just enough for every molecule and every universe (great and small) to begin rotating in extremely precise orbits. Then, somehow, these random molecules, created from a random explosion billions of years ago, assembled themselves into water, air, carbon, fiber, enzymes, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, organisms, populations, communities, ecosystems, and so on.

Then there is the matter of biological information. High school teachers never tell their students that the evolutionary model of one cell to man is based on unproven assumptions. Historical science is built exclusively on assumptions. Many necessary steps are taken for granted in the “molecules to man” model. Evolution assumes that non-living chemicals gave rise to the first “living” cell which, in turn, randomly evolved into more complex forms. Of course, this theory is not scientifically testable or experimentally verifiable.

G.A. Jerkut, an evolutionist, admitted to the following assumptions of evolution:

  1. Non-living things gave rise to living material; spontaneous generation occurred;
  2. Spontaneous generation occurred only once;
  3. Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all genetically related;
  4. Protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms);
  5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated;
  6. Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates;
  7. Within vertebrates, fish gave rise to amphibia, amphibia to reptiles, reptiles to birds, and birds to mammals.

However, no cell is simple. For example, bacterium can synthesize some 3,000 to 6,000 compounds at a rate of about 1 million reactions per second. Cells of bacteria and blue-green algae contain just a single molecule of DNA, and they lack well-defined internal structures, such as a nucleus, chromosomes, and internal membranes. They lack the innate capacity to morph into anything else. This is true because they contain information specific to them, and such information cannot rewrite itself, becoming a completely different species. What kind of information does DNA contain? What kind of information must origin-of-life researchers explain the origin of? DNA contains specific information that deepens the mystery surrounding life.

DNA is the specific “code” of life itself. It is a rather dubious claim to state that genetic information came from nothing; that it “wrote” itself. Moreover, information specific to the second definition equals an arrangement or string of characters that accomplishes a particular outcome or performs a function of communication. This is no more possible than the idea that a piece of computer hardware (my laptop, for example) can write code. Moreover, computer software is, by its very definition, the compilation of zeros and ones in a “code” or “language” that tells the hardware what to do. Every single aspect of what I’m doing right now, from the appearance of each distinct letter on this screen to the bold or italic command, to the period at the end of this sentence. Code cannot write itself; it requires a programmer.

Here’s something to ponder. It’s been argued by atheists that if the universe needed a programmer (an intelligent designer), then that intelligent being needed a cause or creating force. This claim misconstrues the argument. Theists say everything that begins to exist needs a cause. The first premise of creationism does not say everything needs a cause. Since God did not begin to exist, He does not need a cause. Atheists also commit the category fallacy in which things from one category are applied to another. Granted, we can debate What caused God for decades, but such arguments are not mere scientific debates; they are disagreements between worldviews. Remarkably, even critics of creationism recognize that the beginning of the universe required something that was not itself caused. Atheists simply state that the laws of physics just exist, period

Concluding Remarks

It is obvious that Darwinism, secularism, and naturalism are prevalent in academia today. It is not necessarily a bad thing to discuss these “theories.” The harm comes when an instructor teaches them as scientific fact, ignoring any alternative theory such as intelligent design. They decide for themselves that the biblical account of creation is entirely unscientific. They fail to distinguish between theory, historical science, and provable science. Instead, they teach evolution in the same manner that they teach mathematical formulae, gravity, friction, thermodynamics, chemistry, and genetics. In fact, they base everything in the universe on the unproven assumption that something came from nothing. They assume that naturalism can account for the origin, organization, development, and fine-tuning of the universe and everything in it regardless of the mathematical impossibility of life beginning without an intelligent designer. (See my blog article Signature in the Cell: The Definition of Life.) 

Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of variation between species. Species—groups of similar organisms within a genus—are designated by biochemical and other phenotypic criteria and by DNA relatedness, based on their overall genetic similarity. You may recall from ninth-grade biology class that living organisms (whether animal or plant, zebra or zucchini) are divided into seven levels: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. The arguments presented by today’s New Atheists fly in the face of logic and probability. The laws of physics, when applied uniformly and fairly, indicate that the universe could not have created itself. Nor could the information of biology write itself.

It is worth stating that people have personal rather than evidential reasons for rejecting God. The assumption that all knowledge must be scientifically provable isn’t scientifically provable. It’s a philosophical claim. People who deny the existence of God want to run their own lives, and they don’t want anyone to interfere with the way they’re living. They want to be in control of everything they do, and they know that if they were to believe in God, they’d have to change their lifestyle. Instead of living by their own list of what’s right and wrong, they’d have to take seriously God’s moral standards.

Paul said in Romans 8:7, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot” (RSV). Why, then, should we allow our children to be taught unproven theories by secularists who refuse to put aside their presuppositions, misconceptions, biases, and personal worldview?

2 thoughts on “The Basis for True Science

  1. Thanks so much for your kind feedback to my blog post. I am pleased to hear that you got something out of it. I am called to a ministry of evangelism and apologetics. Currently, I am earning my master’s in theology. Please keep coming back and feel free to share a link to my site. God Bless. Steven.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s