What is science? One definition, and this comes from webster's, is:
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
I have had this discussion many times with many men of faith, and many men not of faith. In most, I find an underlying opinion, backed up by the above definition, regarding the nature of science. That opinion is that science is the pursuit of truth. Its goal is to determine the underlying truth of the universe. I disagree.
Science does not care about truth. Nowhere in the scientific method does truth rear its ugly head. What you have is observation and theory. In other words, look at the data, then make something up to explain it, preferably something that explains yet-to-be-measured data. Then measure that data and, if it matches what the theory explained, you've got a good theory. Science tells us when something will hit the ground if we drop it. Science makes, with its sibling engineering, things like light bulbs and toothpaste. But science does not attack the beast of truth. At least not in my opinion.
Science makes models that predict observation. The best model is the model that most simply predicts all of the data. Even if that simplest model is a complete departure from the underlying truth of the universe, that is still the better scientific model. We have a model of the atom, I think proposed by Niels Bohr, showing that an atom is made up of electrons orbiting the nucleus in certain energy shells. [caveat: I know this model has been superseded by more complex models, but I don't really want to use those as examples] Is this really what is going on? Are there really electrons? I say it doesn't matter to science, and this is why I don't see science as a pursuit of truth. Science doesn't care if the underlying truth doesn't really have electrons. We only care that the model that uses orbiting electrons predicts all our measurements. If it does, excellent model.
And I think that this, partially, is part of the problem with evolution. One of my dear friends once asked me a pointed question - do I believe in evolution? I responded, with hesitation, yes. This is because I know how Christians oft judge this. You either believe in God, or you believe in evolution. Christians who claim to believe both are just unwilling to resolve the issue, and this friend knew I was not like that - knew that I would have thought this through. But I immediately gave more - that my belief in evolution was a scientific belief, and did not mean that I thought evolution really happened (that evolution represented the truth of history). Because my belief there is that until we observe it, we don't know. But the theory of evolution, at least to a large degree, predicts the data. But since this post is not about evolution, which I could write on for about 10 hours straight, I'll save a deeper discussion for later.
My point is this: most, if not all, of the Science vs. God debates, put The Word of God in opposition to Science, while the two are inherently different. They are not in contention, because one addresses truth, and one does not. If you want truth, turn to God. If you want toothpaste, turn to Science. As such, science will never counter God.
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
I have had this discussion many times with many men of faith, and many men not of faith. In most, I find an underlying opinion, backed up by the above definition, regarding the nature of science. That opinion is that science is the pursuit of truth. Its goal is to determine the underlying truth of the universe. I disagree.
Science does not care about truth. Nowhere in the scientific method does truth rear its ugly head. What you have is observation and theory. In other words, look at the data, then make something up to explain it, preferably something that explains yet-to-be-measured data. Then measure that data and, if it matches what the theory explained, you've got a good theory. Science tells us when something will hit the ground if we drop it. Science makes, with its sibling engineering, things like light bulbs and toothpaste. But science does not attack the beast of truth. At least not in my opinion.
Science makes models that predict observation. The best model is the model that most simply predicts all of the data. Even if that simplest model is a complete departure from the underlying truth of the universe, that is still the better scientific model. We have a model of the atom, I think proposed by Niels Bohr, showing that an atom is made up of electrons orbiting the nucleus in certain energy shells. [caveat: I know this model has been superseded by more complex models, but I don't really want to use those as examples] Is this really what is going on? Are there really electrons? I say it doesn't matter to science, and this is why I don't see science as a pursuit of truth. Science doesn't care if the underlying truth doesn't really have electrons. We only care that the model that uses orbiting electrons predicts all our measurements. If it does, excellent model.
And I think that this, partially, is part of the problem with evolution. One of my dear friends once asked me a pointed question - do I believe in evolution? I responded, with hesitation, yes. This is because I know how Christians oft judge this. You either believe in God, or you believe in evolution. Christians who claim to believe both are just unwilling to resolve the issue, and this friend knew I was not like that - knew that I would have thought this through. But I immediately gave more - that my belief in evolution was a scientific belief, and did not mean that I thought evolution really happened (that evolution represented the truth of history). Because my belief there is that until we observe it, we don't know. But the theory of evolution, at least to a large degree, predicts the data. But since this post is not about evolution, which I could write on for about 10 hours straight, I'll save a deeper discussion for later.
My point is this: most, if not all, of the Science vs. God debates, put The Word of God in opposition to Science, while the two are inherently different. They are not in contention, because one addresses truth, and one does not. If you want truth, turn to God. If you want toothpaste, turn to Science. As such, science will never counter God.
Comments