In the Oxford dictionary, science is defined as “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.” This definition has two parts: 1) the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation, and 2) the testing of theories against the evidence obtained from the observation and experimentation.
It is important to consciously be aware, from the beginning, that science only applies to interaction with the material world. It is not a “belief” or a philosophy. Also, the study of the natural world through observation and experimentation does not require any preconceived ideas. Scientists simply take note of what naturally happens when they are observing and experimenting with various elements of nature.
The testing of theories, however, does require preconceived ideas. A scientist will speculate about what might happen if he or she did certain things to intervene in the experimentation, then devise some kind of process to test the speculation.
In order to test a theory, it must first be conceived. And a theory is not some neutral piece of knowledge. It is necessarily based on some system of belief – a worldview belief. If the worldview system that the theory is based upon reflects reality, it is expected that the results of an experiment will cause a predictable, or at least logical, outcome. If the worldview system that the theory is based upon does not reflect reality, it can be expected that the a particular predicted outcome will not occur.
In our day, most (though not all) of the people who operate in the arena of science are believers in a naturalistic worldview – the belief that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. When doing only observation and experimentation, there is, literally, no difference between someone who holds a naturalistic worldview or a Christian theistic worldview. As a result, when they participate in science, you can expect the same conclusions from any of them. However, when they take the results of their observations and experimentation (the data) and try to produce a desired outcome based on some theory they have conceived, not only the outcome, but the very conception of the work they do will be very different. So how does that play out in real life?
Water on Mars
Rovers on Mars have been able to detect what is most probably water 7 – 12 miles underground. That is the based on actual science as the rovers on the planet’s surface have received data from underground seismic activity. It is well established that one of the primary purposes of the scientists who have developed the Mars rover program is to search for life on the planet. Because they are committed Naturalists, they are convinced that life could have evolved on Mars. So far, absolutely no evidence of life has ever been discovered to back that up. But that is their belief, and that is the belief behind the theories they are working with.
Human Evolution and the Fossil Record
Over the years, scores of humanoid fossils have been found and analyzed by evolutionary scientists. The fossils themselves are the data that scientists from any worldview background can analyze. When creating theories about them, however, those who hold a naturalistic worldview begin with the belief that naturalistic evolution is true. Based on that belief, it is increasingly common for researchers to offer new and novel proposals that are not based in actual observation and experimentation, but on their worldview philosophy. Recent research shows that this is increasingly a problem.
New Scientific Technique
Scientists in Switzerland have developed a new technique that allows them to observe chemical reactions taking place in liquids at extremely high temporal resolution (very fast snapshots). This has allowed them to track how molecules change within a few quadrillionths of a second. This technique allows scientists to acquire raw data that has previously been impossible to track.
Once again, the acquisition of this data is what science is all about. One group of scientists is using the technique to see what chemical reactions happen when concentrated urea is exposed to ionizing radiation. Any scientist can do this experiment and observe the reaction that occurs. However, certain evolutionary scientists are proposing theories that assume that the results of this process could create the building blocks of RNA and DNA – in other words, they are proposing that this may be a step in the naturalistic origin of life on earth.
When Science is not Science
Too many times, what is touted as science is not really science – it is speculation based on naturalistic philosophy. These scientists attempt to use scientific data and experiments to prove their naturalistic belief about the nature of reality. They believe that under the right circumstances, life was able to spontaneously emerge out of non-life, and they have dedicated their entire lives to proving it true using science.
To date, EVERY attempt at this has failed. You see, naturalistic philosophy is not a scientific point of view, it is a religious one. There is NO science to back it up. Those who believe it must do so purely by faith.
Because these people have “Dr.” in front of their names and call themselves scientists, many people are fooled into thinking that their speculative theories are actually science. It is not! As Christians engage a world dominated by a naturalistic worldview, it is important to be able to make the distinction between actual science (a methodology) and philosophical speculation (a belief system). Science is not a belief system.