I often refer to Wikipedia, that unassailable bastion of compiled wisdom, not because I believe it to be particularly accurate, but because
it provides as good an understanding of how people currently use language as
can possibly be obtained. A Wikipedia definition is the gold standard for
lowest common denominator human knowledge. So while it may not represent what
everyone down through human history understood by the term “science”, let’s
give their definition a browse:
“Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.”
Sounds reasonable, no? So let’s get some things clear here:
I am not anti-science — and more importantly, neither
Christians nor the Scripture itself are anti-science — if by “science” we mean using
our God-given intelligence to puzzle out how things work and make life better
for each other. Who could reasonably be against the search for objective truth?
Who wouldn’t like better hygiene, a cure for cancer or buildings that remain standing in earthquakes?
“Science” in this sense is a perfectly sensible concept, and
something man was clearly designed for. It’s in our nature to ask questions and
look for answers.
I am, however, profoundly anti-science, if by “science” you
mean what most people actually mean by it: agenda-driven, government- or
special interest-funded pseudo-authority masquerading as universal truth.
Boiled down to its essence, it is a propaganda hammer used to bludgeon the most malleable minds into what are — today, at least — the most politically acceptable shapes.
It is about as far from the original concept as it is possible to have come.
The apostle Paul encountered the equivalent of the second type
of “science” in his day. He tells Timothy:
“Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called 'knowledge’, for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.” (1 Timothy 6:20-21)
The KJV here has “oppositions of science, falsely so called”,
a lovely, descriptive turn of phrase that remains applicable even if what Paul
was specifically referring to was first-century Gnosticism. The point is that
men have, throughout history, devised systems of knowledge by which they purport to be able to explain the
mysteries of the universe, and that these will inevitably be invoked in opposition to the word of God.
But Paul couldn’t have more accurately summed up the current
state of science: irreverent babble and contradictions.
The original scientific method, what we all learn in high
school and, most significantly, what we expect of scientists, distilled to its
most basic form, is this:
1. Come up with a hypothesis.
2. Come up with a series of falsifiable predictions
that might confirm or disprove it.
3. Experiment or observe to confirm or disprove the
hypothesis.
4. Modify, discard, or adopt as a workable scientific
theory, depending on the results.
5. Publish results, along with details of the
experiment or observation performed, for peer review to eliminate bias and to
be transparent.
By this traditional and rigorous standard, Darwin’s theory
of evolution by means of natural selection is rubbish and every subsequent modification thereof being taught in public schools should be stricken from the books
without further delay. 155 years after Darwin published his theory, there
remains a spectacular lack of both successful experimentation and useful observation.
Why do Christians run and hide from this sort of “science”
as if it holds any kind of authority at all? Why do we accommodate such
nonsense with complicated explanations by which we desperately try to have our
cake and eat it too; courting the world by trying to cram the latest
pseudo-scientific “flavour of the month” into our theology?
What’s the age of the earth? I don’t know, but neither does
science. I have my theories like everybody else, but nothing significant turns
on them. Is homosexual desire genetic? Again, I have no idea. Neither does science at present, despite faint protestations to the contrary. Is global
warming happening? I doubt it, but it’s unimportant to my theology or my Christian
walk and the evidence already out there makes it clear that any invocation of “science” on
the warmer’s side is either wish-fulfillment or fraud.
Perhaps this is why Paul warned Timothy to avoid the irreverent
babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, no? Apart from
the fact that it frequently and unjustifiably causes people to “swerve” from
the faith, it’s a giant time waster. If you can argue the issue of evolution to
death with an unbeliever, you are still a long, long way from getting to what
is really important and necessary to him: the person and work of Jesus Christ.
If only we would avoid it!
In case you’ve never thought it through, here’s a quick list
of where the scientific method can go wrong, and these days, almost invariably
does:
1. The hypothesis can be nonsense, wish fulfillment
or fantasy.
2. The “falsifiable prediction” or predictions may
not be falsifiable. How, for instance, could one disprove the existence of God?
It’s a classic case of a non-falsifiable prediction.
3. The experimenter may stack the deck by faking
results or discarding those that that don’t agree with his hypothesis.
4. The experimenter may refuse to discard his
theory no matter how much proof accrues against it, or may adopt it without legitimate
evidence.
5. At the peer review stage, the “scientist” may
stack the deck by submitting only to those who already agree with his
hypothesis and dismissing those who disagree as “deniers”, or refuse to show
his results in full or at all in order to allow replication of his experiment.
You may say, “Those things could never happen”. Except they
do, on a regular basis.
Michael Mann, the inventor of the climate “hockey stick”,
still refuses to provide his proxy data for peer verification. However, Mann manages to retain the cover of “science” for what has been repeatedly
demonstrated to be faked-up rubbish data. It’s a classic failure to replicate,
even if he’s just being proprietorial.
It doesn’t end with Mann. Not by a long shot.
It turns out that P values, the so-called gold standard
of statistical validity, are not as trustworthy as many scientists and
economists have long assumed. Why? In this case the original hypothesis was
nonsensical.
Then Principia
Scientific International breaks the news that the U.S. government is
involved in rigging climate data. Wow. Who woulda thunk it?
And The Economist
reports on the myth of science as “self-correcting” with this: “Over the past
few years various researchers have made systematic attempts to replicate some
of the more widely cited priming experiments. Many of these replications have
failed.”
Modern science worshipers have built, and continue to build,
the foundation for their ever-changing worldview on shifting sands.
The best book on the Philosophy of Science right now is by a secular philosopher who was also a master chemist and physicist, Michael Polanyi. It's called "Personal Knowledge." If you're not a pro philosopher, reading it will give you a headache, just because of the words and concepts he uses...but it's really top level stuff. He points out that far from being a neutral study of universal truth, science is full of human interests, preferences and inclinations, just as Tom says. And he gives plenty of examples and illustrations of that.
ReplyDeleteImmanuel Can
Case in point, look at these examples global warming theory and reality.
Deletehttp://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/uk-scientists-predict-global-cooling-after-record-arctic-ice-growth/
Good one. This is another:
Deletehttp://www.steynonline.com/6547/when-science-is-settled-by-government
Mark Steyn is a political commentator/writer/general funny guy who happened to call scientist Michael Mann a fraud and has been in court about it for the last three years. Mann is a global warming darling and I don't think Steyn even finished high school, if I remember correctly, but it doesn't matter: Mann is pulling his evidence out of thin air while Steyn is quoting hard facts. Whichever way the judge rules on this, what Steyn has brought out about the modern 'scientific method' is invaluable. I wouldn't trust anything Mann says about anything.
And Mann doesn't even have to be 'typical'. Let's say, for instance, he is representative of only 10% of the current crop of scientific 'top guys'. I can't imagine what else is going on and I don't know where this generation's default assumption of near-infallibility for scientific pronouncements is coming from.