What Is Science?

Now once you’ve been alive as long as I have, you’ve seen how the “appeal to science” game is often played. Every generation seems to deal with a brand-new group of experts that overturn the last generation’s “truth,” each quoting the latest scientific studies as a source of their newer, better, more authoritative voice.

Margarine is healthier than butter. Butter is healthier than margarine! Never lay your infant on their backs. Always lay your infant on their backs! Aspartame has been tested and is totally safe for human consumption. Aspartame causes Alzheimer’s! There’s going to be an ice age! The world is going to melt!

Anyone as old as I am has lived through a baffling array of different examples of so-called “settled-science” that demands we all comply with whatever the experts say, only to see that stance reversed or vanish completely a decade later. Of course, I agree with those who say we must be open to changing our minds once new evidence is revealed, but what is often frustrating is the absolutist, declarative stance that so-called experts hold to, that is often strongly used to bully people towards certain perspectives.

What then is science if so many different groups can lay claim to it? And as for the question of ultimate origins, why is it that evolutionists so often refer to creation being a faith position while painting evolution as scientifically based? What exactly is the difference?

Is Evolution “Scientific”?

In 1996, the pro-evolution National Research Council (US) produced and published a report entitled the “National Science Education Standards” (NSES), which listed several criteria defining what science is and what it isn’t, supposedly for the purpose of assisting educators in setting goals for achievement appropriate for all members of the science education community.

Under the heading “Nature of Scientific Knowledge,” the current online description1 reveals some following points (edited for brevity) in regard to what they feel is the nature of scientific knowledge. Let’s read it, and I will identify some key points (using upper-case letters) we’ll use to compile a list of criteria afterwards.

Science distinguishes itself . . . through the use of empirical standards, [A] logical arguments, and skepticism, as scientists strive for the best possible explanations about the natural world.

Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. First and foremost, they must be consistent with experimental and [B] observational evidence about nature, and must make [C] accurate predictions, when appropriate, about systems being studied. They should also be logical, respect the rules of evidence, be [D] open to criticism, report methods and procedures, and make knowledge public.

Explanations on how the natural world changes based on myths, [E] personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific.

So, let’s put together a short list of what science supposedly embodies based on their standards.

1. Science should contain observational data.
2. Science should make accurate predictions.
3. Science should be logical.
4. Science should be open to criticism.
5. And apparently science should contain no personal presuppositions.

Now, understanding this is a pro-evolution group, let’s compare their criteria to the story of evolution and see if it stands their own test.

A: Observational Data (Can the story of evolution be observed?)

“Many evolutionists (many of them highly respected/accredited) seem to live with a kind of ‘schizophrenic’ mindset.”2 When asked whether evolution can be observed, some evolutionists claim the answer is yes.

“Actually, there is superabundant evidence for animals evolving under our eyes: British moths becoming darker since the Industrial Revolution (industrial melanization), insects evolving DDT resistance since World War II, malaria parasites evolving chloroquine resistance in the last two decades, and new strains of flu virus evolving every few years to infect us.”3 4

However, others say no.

Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period, but they have seen the after effects . . . .5

So what’s going on here? Well, “evolutionists insist evolution is observable, but disingenuously point to examples of change that fall far short of what they really mean by evolution.”6 If you ask the average layperson what the big picture of evolution means, you’ll usually get this sort of response: “We came from monkeys. Before that we were just bacteria in a pond.”

Which is actually the entire gist of this official description according to a text from Oxford on evolution. According to this publication, the General Theory of Evolution is:

[T]he theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.7

The “general theory” of evolution basically says that at one time on earth there was no life, then the first living organism spontaneously generated, and then that first living thing diversified, changed, and evolved into other life forms, resulting in every living thing that has ever been on earth. “So showing students examples of light and dark coloured moths evolving into various populations of light and dark coloured moths hardly constitute proof of evolution.”8 Evolutionists have acknowledged this:

The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content or light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.9

Notice the clear admission (from an evolutionist) that natural selection does not equal “evolution.” Simply showing change occurring in living things is not a demonstration of evolution in the big picture sense. As a matter of fact, “natural selection [the most commonly touted proof of evolution] is an important part of the creation model,”10 as it (among other things) explains how we have such an incredible variety of various kind of creatures descended from the far fewer kinds that boarded Noah’s Ark. How can natural selection be touted as observable “proof” of evolution if creation believers claim it as observable evidence for their model as well?

“Mutation and natural selection (evolutions supposed mechanism) have never once shown an ability to create new, functional genetic information in a creature. No one has ‘seen’ evolution [occur]. . . .  So according to the NSES, (‘all scientific ideas depend on experimental and observational confirmation’) evolution fails their first criterion for being scientific.”11

B: Accurate Predictions (Has the story of evolution made accurate predictions?)

Those who’ve studied the massive challenges with the story of evolution are likely familiar with the several failed predictions it has made, past and present. Remember how evolutionists formerly described several body parts (such as the appendix) as “vestigial organs,” supposedly “useless left over from our evolutionary past”?12 Well, of course, “further research has revealed that the appendix is a fully functional and important organ, particularly in early childhood.”13

Also, remember the prediction a few years ago that non-coding regions in DNA were simply millions of years of residual junk, spawning the term junk DNA? Well that’s also been proven to be spectacularly wrong, with one researcher saying;

[T]he failure to recognize the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology.14

Surprisingly, “Charles Darwin admitted there was a serious challenge to his hypothesis”:15 the absence of missing links.

Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.16

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.17

Even more recently National Geographic admitted,

Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost.18

“In other words, they are admitting that 99.9% of the evidence is missing! Evolutionists continually point to a small group of highly disputed, (even within their own community), doubtful transitional candidates to justify their theory.”19

“If [among the many other failed predictions evolutionists have made] over 100 years of in-depth research has not confirmed even Darwin’s biggest prediction about the”20 story of evolution, the NSES proposition that true science should make accurate predictions shows evolution has failed in that regard as well.

C: Logical (Is the story of evolution logical in light of current scientific knowledge?)

One of the easiest concepts for the average person to understand is design requires a designer. Whether artwork, architecture, or computer software programs, the idea that buildings have builders and that programming is the result of a programmer only makes sense. Criminology for example is heavily reliant on this concept, and detecting whether intelligent agents were involved in various situations is standard procedure. Now, with this in mind, try the following example as a thought experiment.

“Imagine you open your front door and see a robot walking on two legs along the street carrying a package on its shoulder. The package is marked with an address, that the robot has followed and arrived at. Glancing at your neighbour, you say ‘Who do you think made the robot?’ To which he says, ‘I don’t think anyone made it, I think it made itself!’”21

Now be honest with yourself, how much of a hit would your respect for your neighbor’s cognitive ability take in that moment? “With even a lay person’s knowledge of basic engineering, would that be a logical conclusion?”22 No! However, the fact is that “discoveries inside living things of micro technology of an astounding nature (analogous to the scenario above) have stretched concepts of self assembly to the limits of credulity.”23 Basically, beyond the limits of credulity you’d have towards your neighbor’s response in the above scenario.

“For example, the tiny protein is the miniature ‘postman’ contained in abundance within every living cell. Kinesin carry parcels of proteins along cellular roadways [called micro-tubules], walking on two legs in a similar fashion to humans.”24 Simply go online and search the term kinesin to watch many video animations of what they look like and do. They are incredible, and you have thousands of them inside each of your cells right now, busily going about their work!

Amazingly, “the cells knows when and what ‘parts’ (proteins) to manufacture, which it then does in tiny factories and packages them (in Golgi apparatus), somehow transmits a signal to the ‘robot’ (kinesin) that arrives, picks up and delivers these ‘packages’ (vesicles) to their specified destination.”25

This should “cause any thinking person to ask, ‘Where did these biological machines inside living beings come from?’”26 They are far more sophisticated than anything the most brilliant minds we know have even come close to creating. Should we express such blind faith and believe these mind-boggling examples of engineering and programming happened by random chance? No!

“No logical people would conclude their car’s motor designed and assembled itself,”27 and yet we see motors on the “back” of bacteria, “such as the bacterial flagellum (equivalent to a 32-piece outboard motor, which also has a clutch) and the incredible ATP synthase (a motor that spins at over 1000 rpm, producing ATP, the universal energy currency of all known life forms).”28 Micro-technology in biological form like that is truly incredible!

“Occam’s razor is often paraphrased, ‘All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.’ Is it more logical and rational when observing things like motors and robot-like mechanisms to believe they created themselves or they were created by an intelligent designer? . . .  The NSES states scientific explanations must be logical, so once again evolution fails.”29

D: Open to Criticism (Is the story of evolution open to criticism in academia?)

Double doctorate Jerry Bergman’s 2011 book, Slaughter of the Dissidents, blew the whistle by documenting the widespread discrimination by evolutionists against Darwin skeptics throughout academia and the scientific community. It revealed multiple cases in an in-depth fashion, showing tactics used against Darwin skeptics, demonstrating how showing support for anything that challenges Darwinian dogma can deny them earned degrees, awards, and tenure. Simply put, it can be career ending.

The book exposed the extent of the hostility and academic bigotry often exhibited towards those who dare to question Darwinism, showing that far from being an academic area that promotes freedom of speech, even the slightest hint of sympathy for questioning Darwinian evolution often results in rapid punishment. Such an example was highlighted in the highly criticized 2008 movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which demonstrated that “even Darwinists themselves, when attempting to be open-minded, are often removed from their positions for daring to allow other points of view!”30

“A recent example is evolutionary Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s former director of education, who was forced to resign within a couple days after suggesting that creation and ID should be discussed in classrooms.”31 Ironically, his reasoning was that it would increase criticism of intelligent design!

This is a far cry from when evolutionists were “first making their way into public education system Darwinists argued that evolution should at least be taught alongside creationism in the ‘spirit of fairness.’ But today the intellectual elite command total obeisance to their interpretation of origins as the ‘only way,’ and use taxpayer’s money to indoctrinate children in public schools by disallowing competing viewpoints.”32

So, as it is far from being open to criticism in the public sphere, the NSES criteria for science should not be applied to the story of evolution.

E: No Presuppositions (Does the story of evolution include preconceived notions?)

“Although many evolutionists deride creationists as pseudo-scientists because of their ‘religious’ presuppositions,”33 a simple look at how the word science has been redefined by them demonstrates the same type of dogmatic commitment, even before evidence is even examined!

Consider the following quote from immunologist Scott Todd published in Nature magazine:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.34

Can you notice any presuppositions in that statement? Let’s look at another longer quote from one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.35

This is a startling admission from Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and self-proclaimed Marxist, illustrating how the idea of God is automatically dismissed from “science,” whether the facts support the idea or not!

“In order to be truly neutral (hold no presuppositions) regarding the theory of origins, one would have to be open to the view that life could have arisen completely naturalistically, while simultaneously accepting that it may have been intelligently designed. You would then conduct investigations to see which hypothesis is better supported.”36 But if the term science itself automatically excludes God, how could you ever come to that conclusion?

Interestingly, the concept that science is somehow separate from God is fairly recent. For example, the 1828 version of Webster’s dictionary defined science this way.

SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from /i>scio, to know.]
1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.37

As you can see, science simply means knowledge, and the ability to comprehend truth. And the majority of the greatest scientists in the past believed in the creator God of the Bible. So when did that begin to change? Well looking into the roots of evolution, we see a deep-seated tradition of naturalism, and there was definitely motive for adopting this view based on specific presuppositions. For example, T.H. Huxley was an ardent promoter of evolution and was actually nicknamed “Darwin’s Bulldog.” His commitment to naturalism was passed on to his grandson Aldous Huxley, who was the author of the book Brave New World. And not surprisingly, he admitted meaninglessness (based on the idea God did not exist) was a central tenet of his worldview when he said-

I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. . . . For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.38

The fact is, no one is truly neutral. Everyone has presuppositions, no matter how hard they declare they try to be fair and balanced. Despite the fact many people will loudly proclaim the reason they don’t believe in God is because “science” has proven evolution, that simply isn’t born out by the NSES’ own stipulations, because evolution fails the test they proposed to qualify as true science.

What Then Is Science?

Romans 1:18–19 reveals what happens to people when God's wrath on unrighteousness occurs because of their willingly ignoring truth.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

And what is it that God has shown to them that they are suppressing?

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So, they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

According to God’s Word, the truth of God’s existence is made known to them by means of the creation (the things God made). If science is knowledge of the truth, then science is the study of what God created, not of what He “evolved.” Believers would be wise to reject attempts to blend naturalistic philosophy into the truth of God’s Word and stand on the authority of his Word to reach out to unbelievers. The only way to do this is to trust God’s Word from the very first verse.

ob