Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Another definition is, “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.”
The definition of science includes the concepts of “scientific method” and “theory”. We need to understand these concepts in order to understand what science is, how it works, and what are its strengths and weaknesses as a means of obtaining truth about nature. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
The “scientific method” is a body of techniques developed throughout the history of scientific investigation, from the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, but particularly with the rise of the modern physical sciences in the 17th and 18th centuries. The scientific method is the primary way that science investigates phenomena, acquires knowledge of the natural world, and corrects and integrates previous knowledge based on objective, empirical, measurable evidence and laws of reasoning.
The scientific method consists of the following:
- Characterization (quantified information of existing knowledge, observations, measurements). This may include a list of unsolved problems for which an answer is sought.
- Hypothesis (theoretical, hypothetical explanation). This is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or proposal of correlation between existing data. A hypothesis or theory is generally testable based on the evidence, and may be proven true or false by later investigation.
- Prediction (reasoning, including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories). A useful hypothesis will generally make predictions of currently unknown outcomes. For instance, Einstein’s theories of relativity made a number of predictions, such as that light could be bent by gravitational fields, which have subsequently been proven true by observation.
- Experiment (to test all the above). The experiments may confirm or contradict the hypothesis. The scientist will then go back to the beginning to analyze and characterize the new information, correct (or in some cases completely replace) the hypothesis, and develop further experiments. If the hypothesis is confirmed by repeatable experiments and peer review of the results, and if it adds value in terms of useful explanation and predictions, it is accepted as a good theory. However, even good theories may still be expanded or contradicted over time as a result of further investigation through new observations, hypotheses and experiments.
There are many fields of science, such as:
- Natural sciences:
physics, including astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, dynamics, nuclear physics
chemistry, including analytical, organic, physical, theoretical, nuclear, biochemistry
earth sciences, including geology, meteorology, oceanography, paleontology, seismology, soil science
biology, including anatomy, biochemistry, botany, genetics, immunology, neuroscience, zoology
- Social sciences: anthropology, archaeology, economics, law, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, sociology
- Applied sciences: cognitive sciences, computer sciences, engineering, health sciences
- Environmental sciences: atmospheric sciences, ecology, environmental chemistry, geosciences
Why isn’t astrology, alchemy, black magic, voodoo, mental telepathy, etc., in this list? What is it about those things that makes them non-scientific? See Gordon Glover’s video #2 in his “Science and Christian Education” series (http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/science-and-christian-education/science-and-christian-education-page-1).
These things are not science, because they deal with non-natural phenomena. They can’t be studied in a systematic way, and don’t follow natural cause and effect relationships. We wouldn’t expect these subjects to receive equal time in a science classroom. Alchemy has an interesting history, being once studied by some of the early eminent scientists (for instance, Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle), and it helped form the basis for modern chemistry and pharmacology; yet, its supernatural and mystical qualities are not legitimate scientific concerns.
Should special creation and “creation science” be included with these other sciences? Does “creation science” follow the rules of science? Does it make useful predictions and testable theories about the operation of nature? Are those theories supported by the evidence? Is creation science open to correction based on observational and experimental evidence, and peer review from other experts in scientific disciplines?
In this blog, I hope to the explore some of the evidences from nature, the methods, theories and assumptions made by mainstream science, and to evaluate the competing claims of “creation science”. I believe the evidence shows that in large measure, much of creation science is not good science; in fact, is often not science at all, but religious dogma covered in a veneer of scientific language. Yet, as a believer, it is also my desire to seek the best explanations which can reconcile Christian faith with the observational evidence from the world around us.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment