What science is NOT - Its Limitations - Part III

This blog is a very adequate quote from All About Science:

The Limitations of Science

---

Mankind has never devised a better tool for solving the mysteries of the universe than science. However, there are some kinds of questions for which scientific problem solving is unsuited. In other words, science has limitations.
There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer our questions. All of these have the same problem: The questions they present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue of science.


The three areas of limitation are:

• Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.

• Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. Science can't help here.
  
  Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.

• Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.
  
  In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition god is a supernatural being.

So the next time someone invokes "scientific evidence" to support his or her point, sit back for a moment and consider whether they've stepped outside of these limitations.  Scientific method is limited to a process defined by that which is measurable and repeatable. By definition, it cannot speak to issues of ultimate origin, meaning, or morality. For such answers, science is dependent on the values and personal beliefs of those who use it. Science, therefore, has great potential for both good and evil. It can be used to make vaccines or poisons, nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons. It can be used to clean up the environment or to pollute it. It can be used to argue for God or against Him. Science by itself offers no moral guidance or values to govern our lives. All science can do is show us how natural law works, while telling us nothing about its origins.
_________________________________

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

This three part series on Science And Its Limitations will serve as an important base as I continue progressing in future blogs.  I hope that you will use it as a barometer for judging articles and books that you read to discern what is truth and what is not.   

Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm.  Let nothing move you.  Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.
(1 Cor. 15:58)

What science is NOT - Its Limitations - Part II

This is a key blog.  Anyone has the right to his/her own opinion, and whether I agree with it or not, I respect their right.  However, when they masquerade their opinion maliciously as fact with the decided intention of misleading others to their way of belief, they lower themselves to deserving utter disrespect.

I refer here specifically to humanistic evolutionary scientists who adamantly purport to have the truth when they are doing nothing more than gushing out their prejudiced opinions.  Why are they doing that?  Actually the truth is simple.  In his excellent book The Challenge Of The Fossil Record, Dr Duane Gish puts it very succinctly: 

The reason most scientists accept evolution has nothing to do, primarily, with the evidence.  The reason that most scientists accept the theory of evolution is that most scientists are unbelievers, and unbelieving, materialistic men are forced to accept a materialistic, naturalistic explanation for the origin of all living things.  Watson, for example, has referred to the theory of evolution as “a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

Very simply, they are humanists that don’t believe in God and don’t want you to either.  Please read my January blogs:  Humanism, What Is It? and Humanism Is All Around You for a complete expose on humanism.  

One of the tenants of Science, as noted in Part I of this blog, states that science is the study of the extant (currently or actually existing) material world around us.  Science is thus limited to the study of what presently exists and what is measurable and repeatable.  That principle alone eliminates any scientific validity to evolutionists’ idea of The Big Bang, the first living cell being created out of inert material, or evolution by Special Selection .  Those are simply postulates or axioms – no better than simple guesses - certainly not science.  Why?  Because they deal with the ancient past, completely outside of the possibility of scientific study. The problem multiplies upon itself when unbelieving journalists, reporters and book publishers, who have no expertise whatsoever in science, jump on any idea that even hints of God not existing.  They publish their mis-information and disseminate it over an innocent public who are all too ready to soak it up as truth. 

Another tenant of Science states that its research involves observation and experimentation of empirical data that is capable (available in front of you) of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.  As before, anything that involves processes that took place in the ancient past is totally incapable of being observed or experimented upon and therefore outside of scientific study.  Call it opinion if you want, but nothing more.

Another tenant of Science requires that assertions about anything theorized must be stated in a way that permits them to be tested for truth or falsehood (falsifiability).  Without pressing the point further it is obvious that guesses about the ancient past cannot be tested for truth or falsehood, and therefore cannot be considered scientific studies.

My next blog, Part III, will continue with our discussion on the limitations of science.  Are you gaining any insights into what true science is and what it is not?  Send me your comments.

Science - What Is It And What Are Its Limitations? Part I

The words science and scientists have been thrown around quite a bit in my previous blogs.  I have  specifically pointed out the ideas of pseudo-science and humanistic scientists, who have overstepped the disciplines they are qualified for in order to express their personal prejudices.  The situation is so serious that I have dedicated this whole blog to expose it.

In this age of fantastic scientific advances the general public is inclined to put scientists on pedestals and take as pure fact anything they say.  When I see a space shuttle take off and circle the earth I am inclined to do the same thing myself.  It is simply amazing!

However, in my eyes, with the high standing they have attained comes a professional and social responsibility to maintain a level of integrity that is above criticism.  Unfortunately, a number of them, to promote their personal prejudices make claims that they know are outside their fields of expertise.  In doing so they sway public opinion to believe what they want them to.

How do they overstep their disciplines?  To answer that question we have to ask another question:  Exactly what are the limits of their disciplines in the first place?  In other words, what is Science and what is NOT science?

DEFINITION OF SCIENCE

Science has to do with the study of the extant (currently or actually existing) material world around us to gain knowledge about it and discover the natural existing laws as to how it works.  It does this through research which involves observation and experi-mentation of empirical data.  Empirical means that the data is capable (directly available to you) of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. 

Scientific studies involve drawing tentative assumptions (hypotheses) about the nature of something or how it works and devising tests to see whether those assumptions are correct or not.  As the continual testing of hypotheses result in positive conclusions, then theories about the nature of something or how it works are developed.  A theory consists of a developing plausible body of scientific principles.

Any scientific theory or claim must contain the quality of falsifiability or refutability.  That means that it must contain the logical possibility that it can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Another definition of falsifiability is:  Stating assertions in a way that permits them to be tested for truth or falsehood. 

If something is non-falsifiable it can not qualify as a scientific theory.  A glaring example of this is the “theory” of evolution.  It is so full of axioms and other presumptions that it is simply impossible to test it for truth or falsehood.

I hope you will read this definition of “science” over and over again.  In the disciplines of physics, chemistry, astronomy or hydraulics, for example, the proper application of the principles of science has yielded an uncountable body of knowledge and products for our society today.  On the other hand, the improper use of, and manipulation of scientific principles for personal reasons or prejudice, yields half truths and direct misrepresentation of the facts.  Humanistic evolutionistic scientists are directly included within this latter group.

My next blog is a continuation of this one.  It will clarify for you what the limitations of science are.  Those limitations are very important in understanding why, for instance, you don’t buy into the "science" that you evolved from an  ape.  Gads!  It’s amazing to me what many people believe in the name of “science”.  What do you think?  Let me know.  Post your comments on the subject.  See you on the next blog.

Abiogenesis - #3: From Nothing - Something

Dr. Duane Gish, PhD, a highly regarded creation scientist with the Institute Of Creation Research, in his book Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, cites statistics regarding spontaneous generation.  He refers to Cytochrome C which is a simple protein in cells.  He says,

“ . . . the probability of a functional cytochrome C arising by chance is no more than 2 x 10 to the -94 factor, a probability so low that it wouldn’t happen even once in the entire universe in 20 billion years, even if every star in the universe had a planet like the earth and one hundred amino acids could be assembled one trillion times a second on every planet.”

This, friends, is a probability far past what is statistically considered an impossibility.  Further, to carry this to the point of absurdity, let’s suppose that by some miracle it DID happen.  That would be only ONE protein out of thousands needed in a functional cell, each one with a different composition to carry out a specific function.  So, this miracle would have to happen thousands of times, EACH in its OWN specific way for a cell to form.  Then, all these proteins would have to assemble by chance in the water and organize themselves so that each does its specific job.  But where is the cell membrane to hold them cozily together?  I don’t know.  You tell me.  I could go on, but I trust the point is made:  a living, functioning, self replicating cell cannot be formed out of inert matter.  That is to say that “Abiogenesis” is a practical impossibility.

I must touch on one other item in order to put this subject to rest.  In 1953 two scientists, Harold Urey and his graduate student Stanley Miller performed an experiment to try to synthesize amino acids from a mixture of gasses and water that they imagined the primeval earth to contain in abundance.  Amino acids are simple inert molecules that are the backbone of protein structures.  Many repetitions of the experiment yielded trace amounts of two amino acids (glycine and ananine), a yield that was, in Miller’s words, “small for the energy expended”.  These are only two of the 20 amino acids required for life to exist.

 

Jerry Bergman states: 

"Their ‘breakthrough’ resulted in front-page stories across the world that usually made the sensational claim that they had ‘accomplished the first step toward creating life in a test tube’.  Carl Sagan concluded, ‘The Miller–Urey experiment is now recognized as the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos.’  The experiment even marked the beginning of a new scientific field called ‘prebiotic’ chemistry.  It is now the most commonly cited evidence (and often the only evidence cited) for abiogenesis in science textbooks."

Evolutionists grabbed on to this experiment and ran with it in magazines and it ended up in most biology, zoology and evolution textbooks. 

However, since then, scientists have attempted untold experiments to further the results of the original Miller-Urey experiments and have produced only a few more of the precious amino acids necessary for life.  Quoting Jerry Bergman again:

“The abiogenesis problem is now so serious that most evolutionists today tend to shun the entire field because they are ‘uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled’ because ‘it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations’ and they worry that a ‘frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding”

Here is the “knock out blow” to the Chemogenesis idea:  What about DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)?  You know, that double helix string of proteins that contain the genetic instructions for, and exists in, every living cell.  In it is coded all of the INFORMATION necessary for the function of a cell and for the cell to replicate (reproduce).  There is no need here to go into its extremely complicated ladder-like structure.  Suffice it to say that each gene “knows” its job in the functioning of the cell.  Now, I ask you, just HOW does it know its job?  It sure didn’t come from the water!  It came from a Creator God that spoke LIFE into it.  Look at nature and the people around you.  Every last one of them is made up of cells with DNA that know how to do their job so that all creation maintains and builds itself in order.

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth . . . Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the people of the world revere him.  For he spoke, and it came to be; He commanded and it stood firm.
Psalms 33:6,8,9