Pages: 1 2 3

Photo credit: atheism (Creative Commons)

I am not a scientist. But that’s okay, because evolution isn’t really science anyway. When you think of science, you probably picture people in white coats looking at test tubes in a laboratory, searching for answers to the big questions in life. Searching for truth, reality, and a way of unlocking all the mysteries of life.


Advertisement-content continues below


Unfortunately, that is not the case.

What tools does science have for its task, or what tools does it use to answer these questions? Observations, measurements, and repeatable experiments.

With the scientific method, information about our world began increasing rapidly.

But then something happened.


Advertisement-content continues below


At first, science limited its inquiries to things it could see and observe and measure. Gradually, things that couldn’t be observed and measured were considered less real. They were just beliefs, unworthy of people who were really in the know. Then beliefs became irrelevant, even inimical to truth.

Science can’t observe God, measure Him, or subject Him to repeatable experiments. So first, it merely said that science is not concerned with God, only material things. But then it began working with the assumption that material things were all there was. They went from confining their area of expertise to what can be observed and measured to concluding that what can be observed and measured was for all practical purposes enough. There was no need to accept anything beyond that.

Yes, I know this is a generalization and that there are many individual exceptions. But they came to believe, not from empirical evidence but simply from their working presuppositions, that all reality can be explained entirely by natural processes.

Now if there is a God, at some point, somewhere, you would expect that He and the world would intersect, that He would actually do something in the world. But science would not admit that. It would never conclude that. Whatever happened had to have had only material causes.

If you could take a time machine back to the beginning of the world and you saw God actually call the world into existence by the words of His mouth, science would never accept that as truth. What this means is that, while science is believed to be the source of all truth in the quest for understanding the world, it automatically precludes certain conclusions from its work.

It is interested in truth as long as it doesn’t have anything to do with God. It’s like trying to solve math problems and denying the existence of the number 3.

Whether or not God did indeed create the world, they will act under the presumption that He didn’t. And all their theories, like evolution, are their best ideas of how all this could have happened on its own.

If God really did create the world, anyone who seriously wants to know the truth about the world and life would want to know that. If science really wanted to know the answers to life, it should be able to reach that conclusion. But its methodology is limited (it can’t put God into a test tube or submit Him to a lie detector), so it out of hand dismisses it as a possibility.

Pages: 1 2 3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.


Don't Miss Out. Subscribe By Email Or Facebook

Email

Facebook