Science is a dominant force in modern society. Almost every aspect of our society has been greatly transformed by scientific knowledge and advancements. However, Americans have a large amount of distrust for scientists. A HuffPost/YouGov poll from 2013 found only 36% of Americans have “a lot” of trust in the reliability and accuracy of scientific information they get. Does this distrust have merit? I thought science was unbiased and all about proving things! I mean, who doesn’t believe in gravity?!
Proponents of science often have similar retorts. To disagree with science is to disagree with what has been proven. This is interesting, for I remember repeatedly hearing in science class nothing can be absolutely proven. Instead, scientific theories were hypotheses which had withstood the rigor of the scientific method and were largely believed to be true. There was always a chance, however, they could be disproven and a new theory would be needed.
Despite this tenant of science, there are many theories which most scientists and lay people have near-100% certainty in. Many people treat something such as gravity as “proven,” and would ridicule anyone who doubts its existence. Should we treat all science the way we treat gravity? Should we believe in its existence and would we be fools to question it?
This depends on what type of science we are talking about. There are two main types of science. Observational science and historical science. Observational science studies and theorizes about that which we can test and observe in an experimental environment. Gravity is within this realm of science. We can conduct tests observing the way different phenomena behave, and see if our observations match our hypothesis.
Historical science is different. Historical science consists of theories which attempt to explain what occurred in the past. One example would be theories about how the continents used to be joined together to form Pangaea, and how through the process of plate tectonics they have dispersed to their current positions. Scientists can hypothesize about what this process would have consisted of and what marks it would have left behind. We can then study the present world and see if our findings match what we hypothesize.
Historical science is significantly different from observational science. The theories cannot be repeatedly tested in a controlled environment via experiments. Instead, we can only make inferences about the past based on what we see today. This is incredibly weaker because nobody can go back into the past to actually observe what happened (like we can observe the results of our experiments in observational science). In fact, look at what Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and Ceo of JoVe, told Live Science about the scientific method:
Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method. The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science.[ref]http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html[/ref]
We cannot reproduce the past. When we examine what we can observe today and make deductions about the past, we can only theorize. It is impossible to place the past circumstances into a repeatable experiment and test our explanations. Therefore, according to Dr. Pritsker, historical science isn’t even science! A more accurate term for historical science would be philosophical science. It is closer to philosophy than it is to observational science.
Why is this important? Well, the distinctions between these branches of science, and how the theories of philosophical science are much weaker, is not often admitted by our culture. Theories of philosophical science are given the same credence as those of observational science when they do not deserve it! This is especially important for the Christian, because all of the trouble-some scientific theories which seem to create an “incompatibility between science and religion” come from philosophical science! There are no aspects of observational science which conflict with Christian teaching.
Here is an excellent example of an evolutionary scientist revealing one of the weaknesses to philosophical science. Darren Curnoe is an Australian paleoanthropologist who was invited to study a set of human fossils found in Red Deer Cave in China. Read what he admitted about how such scientists conduct their “science”:
Nobody looks at a fossil with a completely open mind. I suppose to some extent also we see what we think. So, you come to a fossil and you have an idea about the way you think human evolution worked, and the first thing you do is try and fit that fossil into your worldview.[ref]Curnoe, D., Xueping, J., et al, Human Remains from the Pleistocene-Halocene Transition of Southwest China Suggest a Complex Evolutionary History for East Asians. Public Library of Science One, March 14, 2012; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031918. See also http://creation.com/enigma-man[/ref]
Do you see the problem? If human evolution belonged to the realm of observable science, we would be able to conduct an experiment showing species evolving into humans. This experiment would be repeatable, and different groups of scientists could validate the conclusions others came to. But here no such thing can be done. Instead, the scientists are only allowed to look at one set of bones at a time, and they make conjectures about how they are connected. We cannot go back into the past and see if this is actually how it played out. No experiments of the same type of rigor whatsoever can be conducted. The scientist also admits they often attempt to fit what they see into their evolutionary worldview! Theories like evolution are not unbiased scientific conclusions which have the same level of support as gravity. It is a great shame much of the public is misled in this way.
The failure of society to recognize the distinction between historical and philosophical science allows for secularists to attack creationists on false grounds. One example is the assertion that creationists are anti-science. It follows that if more Americans adopted creationism, then we would become a backwards society devoid of the technological innovation we now find so prevalent. In the creation-evolution debate with Ken Ham, Bill Nye said, “We need scientists, especially engineers for the future. We need engineers for the future. Engineers use science to solve problems and make things. We need these people so the United States can continue to innovate and continue to be a world leader. We need innovation.”[ref]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI 1:49:25 mark[/ref]
This is patently misleading, and Nye should know it. Nye is implying creationism is at odds with the work conducted by engineers. He is making a connection where there is none. No part of philosophical science influences an engineers work. But he lumps all of science together,[ref]Minutes before this point, Nye rejects the distinction between observable and historical science. This is a refutation of reality, which is exactly what he accuses creationists of doing.[/ref] making creationists opposed to all of it and an imaginary firewall to scientific innovation. There are ZERO technological innovations which have resulted from the theory of evolution. Our society’s technological innovations have all come from observable science, and creationists agree with its conclusions. (The scientist who discovered magnetic resonance technology could be used to differentiate between diseased and healthy tissue was a creationist).
We agree with physics, chemistry, and the observable aspects of biology. These branches of science are what engineers use. Let me reiterate on the stark difference between these two branches of science. I can conduct an experiment on gravity. I can hypothesize the rate at which a rock will fall based on the theory of gravity, drop the rock, and then see if the result matches my conclusion. And then someone else can come along and verify my results by conducting the exact same experiment.
Nobody can conduct an experiment showing an ape evolving into a human! It has never been observed and recorded. It cannot be supported in the same way. The first type of science, which can be tested by repeatable experiments, is not what creationists disagree with. We aren’t backwards anti-intellectuals who don’t believe in gravity and electricity. We are not anti-science, but we do disagree with many of the theories of philosophical science. And if you stick around and read more posts, you will see why much of philosophical science stands on very shaky ground!
Many theories of observational science have a vast amount of experimental evidence backing them up. Therefore, most of them are probably not worthy of serious doubt. Philosophical science, on the other hand, is a whole different matter. As mentioned, philosophical science is built on inferences and deductive reasoning. These are largely dependent upon the assumptions held by those doing the reasoning. To decide whether or not a theory of philosophical science is legitimate, the first thing which needs to be examined is the set of assumptions which underlay it. And are the assumptions underlying much of philosophical science reasonable assumptions to hold? Absolutely not! Much of philosophical science should be regarded as “highly likely to be false” because of how poor and unreasonable the assumptions beneath it are.
This is the first of a series of posts introducing creationism. It will be followed by posts explaining the role assumptions play, a comparison of the assumptions behind naturalism and biblical Christianity, and more. For the second post, click here. Subscribe on the right hand side to stay tuned-in!