The Limitations of Science

Science is the use of observation and experimentation to discover things about the natural universe, and the operation of science is supposed to be completely neutral. Scientists run experiments, then let the chips fall where they may. Whatever the results show, that is the way natural reality works – supposedly.

But that principle only works under certain conditions. There are some situations where science does not work that way.

One example is when people use science in a way that is dishonest. For instance, in the early 1970s, dermatologist William Summerlin fabricated research on tissue transplantation. He claimed that he had transplanted skin between genetically unrelated animals. But when other scientists couldn’t replicate his results, it was learned that he had painted the skin of the mice used in his experiments with a black marker to make it appear as if the transplants were successful.

Another situation where science does not work is when scientists fake data to advance a political agenda. In 2009, hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climactic Research Unit revealed that its scientists were suppressing information that contradicted their global-warming agenda. This was followed in 2015 with NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) falsifying climate data for the purpose of influencing the passage of the Paris Climate Accords. More recently, we have seen where this motive has influenced the “science” surrounding various matters related to COVID.

But not all bad science is due to dishonesty. Some of it is due purely to incompetence. In the 1960s, Soviet scientists claimed to have produced a new form of water that became denser and thicker, as well as boiled at higher and froze at lower than normal temperatures. Further studies showed that those properties came about from the presence of impurities in ordinary water.

Dishonesty and incompetence are one thing, but there are some other factors that also contribute to wrong science. The truth is, science can only deal with things that are subject to the laws of nature. And this is where we have to begin dealing not only with natural phenomena, but also with philosophical issues – like, “Is the natural universe all that exists, or is there something beyond it?”

This, of course, moves us into the arena of religion. If God exists, then, of course, He exists outside of the natural universe and is not subject to scientific inquiry. But that brings up another question, “Are there things that are connected to the natural universe that are not subject to scientific inquiry? With this, we get into some very interesting territory.

Naturalistic scientists begin with the assumption that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. If that is true, there is nothing that is ultimately outside of the possibility of empirical inquiry. So, when scientists with this belief do their research, they do it using an assumption that what they are studying absolutely has a natural explanation.

Right off the bat there is a group of scientists that are in deep trouble in this arena. Every scientist who operates in any of the social sciences starts out with a particular disadvantage. Fields such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, and political science do not delve into physical matters that science can study.

Social scientists treat their discipline as if it were subject to scientific inquiry, but in fact they are not. People operating in this arena can collect data by doing field surveys, case studies, ethnographic research, polling, and the like, but the results must be given in statistical averages, means, and medians – none of which give any information about how or why something exists the way it does.

Essentially, social science attempts to use the scientific method to study things that can’t be empirically analyzed. For instance, in psychology you can study the tendencies of people to act in certain ways, but can never get at what causes any particular behavior. In sociology, you can study the tendencies of particular groups of people to act in certain ways, but can never get at the ultimate causes. Still, naturalistic social scientists continue to do their work as if they were doing actual science, when all they are doing is gathering statistical data to track tendencies.

The Conversation is an online magazine that is curated by professional editors, It claims to offer informed commentary and debate on the issues affecting our world. Recently, they published an article by Tim Bayne, professor of philosophy at Monash University entitled, Nobody knows how consciousness works – but top researchers are fighting over which theories are really science. Bayne was reporting on infighting that occurred at the 26th annual meeting of the Association of the Scientific Study of Consciousness in New York City.

Looking at the broader subject, there are four major camps in the battle over the nature of consciousness, with various scientists favoring different ones. There is no need to give a detailed explanation of each one, but a quick lay definition will prove useful.

Theory 1 – Integrated Information Theory (IIT)
IIT is the idea that consciousness is identical to the amount of “integrated information” the brain contains, as opposed to that contained only by its parts.

Theory 2 – Global Workspace Theory (GWT)
The premise underlying GWT is that the information processed in various parts of the brain are “broadcast” into a mental workspace that then allows widespread access to other parts of the brain.

Theory 3 – Re-entrant Processing Theory (RPT)
RPT attempts to integrate information both within the body’s sensory systems as well as across the entire brain hierarchy. Thus, for conscious experience to occur, “re-entrant signaling” from higher-order areas of the brain must feed back to more primary areas.

Theory 4 – Predictive Coding Theory (PCT)
PCT theorizes that the brain has a built in model of how it perceives reality. It then, detects gaps between the model generated by the brain and what is being sensed in the environment by the body’s sensory organs.

There are other theories, of course. It has even been recently proposed that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, like an electrical charge. This theory, called panpsychism, has even been proposed in Scientific American, one of the most prominent American science journals.

At this point, it is not actually necessary to understand the technical intricacies of any of these theories. The point here is that every one of them is based on a naturalistic worldview. That is, all of them assume that consciousness is strictly a function of the operation of the natural universe – whether of the human brain or of the physical properties of the universe itself. The bottom line implication in all of them is that consciousness is a physical phenomenon, not a spiritual one, and that one day science will completely understand it.

But here’s the deal: Nobody knows how consciousness works. The belief that it is purely a result of the operation of the natural universe is not a scientific conclusion – it is a religious one. While naturalistic scientists don’t have a clue as to how consciousness works, they do have requirements for how to research it. According to those working in this field, a theory of consciousness should provide a mechanistic explanation as to how it works

Note the requirement of a “mechanistic explanation.” That means only a naturalistic account is acceptable. Any other kind of explanation will not even be considered. What Naturalists have done is to equate Naturalism with science. They cannot even conceive of the existence of science without it being an expression of a naturalistic worldview.

But once again we need to note that Naturalism is not a scientific construct. It is one of four worldview categories, where a worldview is defined as the assumptions people make about the nature of reality. Note the word “assumptions” in the definition. The clear implication is that a person’s worldview is not based on science, but on beliefs. For naturalistic scientists, then, their belief is that since the only thing that exists is the natural universe operating by natural laws, there is no other possibility for the existence of consciousness but that it has a natural origin. But since this is based on an assumption, not on any known fact, it is a religious belief, not a scientific one.

And this is a problem we run into with a lot of “science” when it is done by scientists who believe in a naturalistic worldview Let’s look at some other examples.

Astronomy
Over the years, astronomers have worked diligently to understand the nature and makeup of the cosmos. In doing this, they have come up with several theories of the universe’s origin, evolution, and overall structure. Chief among these theories are the Big Bang theory, the Steady State theory, inflation, and dark matter and dark energy models. The reason for the many theories is that, frankly, they don’t understand how it works. Now, with the new Webb space telescope, even those theories are being challenged as researchers discover new things they never knew existed.

Quantum Theory
Quantum theory relates to a branch of physics that deals with the physical properties and behavior of atoms and subatomic particles. Here, too, there are numerous theories about how the quantum world exists and operates because, frankly, there is still so much unknown. In fact, a recent headline in Scientific American states that “Quantum physics falls apart with imaginary numbers.” In this field too, almost every day, there are new articles being written about discoveries that call into question things that physicists thought they knew.

And we could continue listing other fields such as evolutionary biology and geology. All of the theories in each of these various realms of science, when they are studied using the assumptions of Naturalism, end up being based on religious beliefs (their faith that Naturalism is true), not on science.

Of course when Christians point this out, the immediate reply is that, “Well, you Christians base your beliefs on faith, so you can’t prove your beliefs are true.

There are a couple of big problems with that response.

First, when Naturalists argue that way, they are requiring that Christians prove the existence of God using naturalistic proofs – while they are not even able to prove their own beliefs that way. But the Christian faith is not based on Naturalism, it is based on Theism – the belief that a transcendent God exists who created the natural universe from His perch beyond it. Naturalistic proofs don’t apply outside of the natural universe.

Second, how do they know God doesn’t exist? How do they know all of reality can be naturally explained? They don’t, they just assume it.

The truth is, empirical proof is not the only kind of evidence that can be brought to bear when trying to understand the nature of reality. Logic and human experience are also legitimate forms of evidence. And interestingly, even Naturalists must use these other types of evidence to explain their theories – especially those they are not able to explain using observation and experimentation – which, as we have seen, covers a lot of territory.

Ultimately, what we must conclude is that the use of science has its limits. There are some things that simply cannot be studied by science. It is also evident that science ≠ Naturalism. Christians fully support science and it does not contradict Christianity. It is just that it can only address things that are a part of the material universe.

While God cannot be proven using an empirical methodology, He can be proven personally. He is an objectively real person who can be known in a personal relationship. Those willing to look for Him based on His actual existence can know Him. And those who do personally receive Him that way, know that they know Him because, as spiritual persons created by Him in His image, humans are able to connect with God Spirit to spirit – because that is the way reality is actually structured.