Is the "scientific
method" unbiased regarding origins? #1
Quote: Naturalism Conflicts with Principles of Logic. There are essentially only two hypotheses regarding origins. The naturalistic hypothesis is that life and its diversity results only from chance and necessity while the design hypothesis suggests that it results from a combination of design, chance and necessity. If you philosophically limit inquiry and explanation to only the naturalistic hypothesis, then you violate the laws of logic which seek to produce reliable and trustworthy explanations. Applying naturalism to origins science is like an investigator assuming that every house fire is the result of accidental or natural causes and that arson (a fire started on purpose, by design) is not a permitted explanation. If the investigator rules out design before examining the evidence he will always conclude that fires result only from accidental or natural causes.Like an arson investigation, origins sciences, including evolutionary biology, are historical sciences. They seek to use present evidence to explain a past (unobservable) event. Rigorous logic and objectivity are particularly necessary in the writing of any historical account. An historical account that is driven by bias or a single philosophical, cultural, religious or other viewpoint, can never be credible, reliable or trustworthy. (edited)
This is a valid point. You cannot start a fair investigation of origins by first ruling in what you have not first proven is true: "material elements and chance and necessity" are all that exists to effect anything. You cannot hold that "God created" while allowing the naturalistic hypothesis to be the standard of how to interpret the empirical evidence. You either start and end with God and his testimony, evaluating empirical evidence in light of what God said, or you dismiss God at all points. There is no middle ground of mixing a little of God at cherry picked places in one's explanations of things with the naturalistic hypothesis and explanation of things, nor is it right to let naturalism over-rule God's testimony some-times and then allow God's testimony to over-rule naturalistic science sometimes. It is a matter of choosing this day who you will serve, whether the imaginary god of this world who has provided the theory of naturalism, or the Creator GOD who has testified about numerous things he did, how and when he did it, and that trumps any naturalistic explanation or theory. You cannot serve both naturalism and the Holy and Revealed Creator at the same time when it comes to interpreting the history God revealed. On present observable and repeatable things, the scientific method is very good. On explaining origins it is pathetically trying to over-rule God's testimony on the assumption that God did nothing and said nothing worthy of consideration about what He did.
The modern "scientific method" is good in dealing with present, observable and repeatable things. It is not very good at all in dealing with the history of origins. It cannot test, observe, and repeat anything regarding the origins of the universe, origin of life, or the variety of life-forms. When dealing with the question of origins, the scientific method is biased. It starts with an unproven and unprovable theory of naturalism. This is a Philosophy, a religious belief, not a factual truth that has been observed, tested, and proven true. With the bias of naturalism, the scientific method springboards over the proof of the premise and goes immediately from assumption of naturalism to the examination of empirical evidence with the bias of accepting only such explanations that agree with the unproven and unprovable premise of naturalism. Thus, all conclusions are not testable and repeatable and observable, but empirical evidence has been forced to line up with the Philosophy.
THAT is not science. It is "science-falsely-so-called". It is actually religious Philosophy of naturalism and atheism pretending to be science and fooling people because they don't make reference to a god, and that becomes the false distinction between "science and religion". What we actually have is not "science versus religion", but "human Philosophy versus Theology". Philosophy of Naturalism has NO PROOF of validity. Theology has great proof, what Luke calls "many infallible proofs"(Acts 1:1-2). The TRUTH of origins cannot be learned through the Philosophy of Naturalism. It can only be learned truthfully through God's revealed testimony. God's word is truth. Every word of God is true including Genesis. Jesus verified the truthfulness of Genesis. If you believe Jesus, you believe what He believed about Genesis. If you do not, you simply lose credibility in saying you believe Jesus. Jesus agreed with Genesis that man and woman were made "from the beginning of the creation"(Mark 10:6).
Terry W. Benton
Return to the General Articles page
Home / Bible studies / Bible Survey / Special Studies / General Articles / Non-Bible Articles / Sermons / Sermon Outlines / Links / Questions and Answers / What Saith The Scriptures /Daily Devotional / Correspondence Courses / What is the Church of Christ / Book: Christian Growth / Website Policy / E-mail / About Me /