Brian Kuehmichel
June 16, 2012

"There is a popular misconception that science is an impersonal, dispassionate, and thoroughly objective enterprise." Paul Davies, in Richard P. Feynman, Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics, Intro.

"Scientism is the claim that science provides the only legitimate explanation of our existence. It represents science as the most rational and intellectually defensible of all forms of human endeavour. This article reveals that there is no purely rational justification for rationality of science and examines the implications for the creation/evolution debate. Much of the article is devoted to an evaluation of the concept of retrovalidation, which is an attempt to provide a rational justification of rationality. It is concluded that rationality and science are contingent concepts and that philosophical rationalism and scientism therefore involve commitments that are outside the scope of rationality." Science and Rationality, Barry R. Harker, Journal of Creation, Vol. 25(3), p. 121, 2011.

"There is evidence which, prima facie, falsifies the theory of evolution, but the explanatory value of the theory is so great and the alternatives to the theory so unthinkable, that the scientist holds on to the theory despite the apparent evidence against it [emphasis in original]." Charlesworth, M., Science, Non-Science and Pseudo-Science: Bacon, Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, and Feyerabend on Defining Science, ABC Science Show Lectures, Deakin University Press, Burwood, Australia, pp.26-2

"Observational science can be a wonderful tool for human advancement and social progress but cannot provide for a reliable guide to human conduct. What is needed is an explanation of the universe that does not fall at the first hurdle and that is able to provide a basis for moral behaviour. On this basis, it is not unreasonable to prefer creation to evolution as an ultimate explanation of the universe." Science and Rationality, Barry R. Harker, Journal of Creation, Vol. 25(3), p. 127, 2011.

Does everything fall under science?

Professor Richard Lewontin is a geneticist and also a self-proclaimed Marxist. He is respected as one of the world's leaders in evolutionary biology. When Lewontin wrote the article, Billions and billions of demons, he penned this comment that reveals the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it. (bold emphases are mine)

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen." (Italics in the original piece and bold emphasis added.)
Reference: Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

The scientific method is only one way to learn truth. By definition the scientific method requires repeatable events. That means science is limited to observing, testing and experimenting with things in the present. These must be examined and re-examined under the same present circumstances until they are understood by those inquiring. Things in the past, both physical and biological, are not able to be observed, tested or experimented upon in the same way. Only guessing can be done with past processes based upon what is found, somewhat upon what is not found and upon biased assumptions. The person in the present was not there to observe past processes and events and therefore speculates unless there is a reliable witness.

"In creation ex nihilo, with a creator who is good, the universe itself must be good and therefore worth investigating. As the creator is the logos, the universe is intelligible and therefore capable of being investigated—and human beings, made in the image of the creator, are intelligent and capable of investigating it. As the creator created freely, the universe is contingent and therefore can be investigated only empirically, rather than by speculative or a priori methods." Science Seeking Understanding Stephen M. Barr

Most events that occur day by day among and between people or happen to people by forces of nature DO NOT fall under that category (of reproducibility) and must be viewed by another method. That method is called the evidential method. The evidential method (used in forensic science) takes oral and or written communication (testimony) and other physical evidence (testimony) to reconstruct the details about a circumstance or event and to verify it beyond reasonable doubt. (Examples are: criminal investigations, courts of law, news reports, newspapers, journals, diaries, historical accounts, et cetera.) That is the basis of verifying any and all historical events including those recorded in the Bible. Because the evidential method is the only way we can look at any event that is not reproducible we also use it to examine the origin of the earth, sun, moon, and starry host.

Since we cannot reproduce the events in the Genesis account we examine them by the evidential method and ask these questions: 1) Does the Genesis account align itself with other known facts? [I did not say 'does it align with a specific interpretation of facts', as noted above, but does it align itself with known facts derived from other sources and perhaps using other methods to learn those facts.] 2) Does it reveal information that is not obtained from other sources? 3) Does the Genesis account give a cohesive explanation in itself for discrepencies, variations, differences, or difficult statements? The answer is a resounding 'Yes'! See: Evidence for Genesis as literal

What can science do?

Operational, empirical, repeatable Science can:
  1. observe and record entities
  2. observe and record combinations of entities
  3. observe and record phenomena (events)
  4. perform controlled experiments upon 1, 2 and to some extent 3 above
  5. interpret facts (and decide or speculate about their inclusion or exclusion) only through some worldview (i.e. a comprehensive system of beliefs)

What cannot science do?

Science cannot:

  1. know the origin of things (If not there to directly observe, then a reliable witness is necessary.)
  2. fathom past processes (If not there to directly observe, then a reliable witness is necessary.)
  3. predict the future with certainty (not able to know all things—all physical and other laws and their effects)
  4. control all possible forces acting upon experiments (not able to know and control all things)
  5. discern the reason why ('Why' is philosophical and therefore outside of observe and record.)
  6. say what ought to be ('Ought' is philosophical and therefore outside of observe and record.)
  7. know the ultimate nature or purposes of things (not able to know all things)
  8. provide an explanation or refutation of things outside of those able to be observed and recorded
  9. disprove the existence of God (not able to look everywhere at the same time)
  10. know the original content or concentrations of various elements or compounds in various processes (geophysical or astrophysical)

Does everything fall under science or are some things just "I want it to be so."?

How about the evolution frauds listed here?

How about these questions - can science answer them?

  1. Where did space for the universe come from?
  2. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, entropy, etc.)?
  3. How did matter get so organized into structures?
  4. Where did the energy come from to organize matter?
  5. How, when, where, why did life come from non-living matter?
  6. What makes non-living matter capable of use for living matter?
  7. How, when, where, why did life learn to reproduce itself?
  8. With what did the first cell capable of reproduction mate?
  9. Why would any plant or animal reproduce when the offspring add increasing competiton for finite resources?
  10. Where do the recognition of: food, self-repair, self-defense, and reproductive mechansisms come from?
  11. Why does any life form recognize its own 'kind'?
  12. How can recombining the genetic code create different varieties since recombining the letters in this document in random ways does not produce Chinese or Hebrew characters?
  13. How can we account for the first enzymes in the presence of oxygen so necessary for sustaining life?
  14. How do we account for the odds against the random formation of the enzymes and proteins at 1x1040,000 with the total number of atoms in the universe estimated to be around 1x1080?
  15. How do we account for our mind and its ability to process information?
  16. Et cetera

Pseudoscience, dogmatism and scientism

"Beliefs and claims are sometimes put forward as science, in spite of a lack of supporting evidence, and sometimes in the face of uncomfortable facts. ... When pseudoscience is promoted dogmatically as indisputable truth, a form of scientism may be the result."

  1. "Withholding data from the public;
  2. Telling non-scientists we must trust and believe the scientists who are making a particular set of claims;
  3. Silencing dissenting voices;
  4. Claiming that the ‘deniers’ are seizing on scientific uncertainty as proof the idea is wrong;
  5. Saying people are wrong to question the orthodox, majority position;
  6. Denouncing critics and calling them names—e.g. ‘flat-earthers’, ‘Holocaust-deniers’"
  7. Pseudoscience and the stifling of debate

The article Biblical Christianty and Modern Science by Tim LaHaye and David Noebel explains the background of science.

The article God, Science and Beauty by David A. Noebel explains the limitations of science with many quotes from a pre-eminent scientist.

The article Why Scientists Must believe in God by Vern Sheridan Poythress explains that science can only be studied based upon belief in regular and predictable events — laws consistent with a Creator and not random.

Arthur Robinson shows in his article Science from "Access to Energy" that some "Biblical Passages encapsulate the essence of science." And that an "ordered physical world created by an omnipotent creator is there to be discovered".

Personal Philosophy by Stan Birchfield shows that the foundation of science is built upon "non-scientific, metaphysical presuppositions ... proved from some non-scientific system, before any science can take place. Thus science is dependent upon religion, not the other way around."