A Sign For You Now

Aim of this step: To consider how personal biases may influence science, and therefore how scientific interpretations could be non-objective

 

This step really came about as I was trying to understand why science and religion (in general) have traditionally been seemingly at odds with each other.

 

I have come to realise that science does not say anything, scientists do. This is not to discount the contributions of science to our world (personally, science is one of my favourite topics), it is merely to point out the fact that in general, scientists, just like everyone else, have their own set of "beliefs". These beliefs could lie in views such as naturalism or materialism or Darwinism, that may lead certain scientists to ignore the detectable scientific evidence for design and ruling out the possibility of God before they even consider the evidence. 

 

For example, Richard Dawkins (the world’s most re-known atheist) was asked by Phillip Johnson what are the greatest evidences for macro-evolution.

 

Dawkins wrote in his response:

“The reason we know for certain we are all related, including bacteria, is the universality of the genetic code and other biochemical fundamentals.”

 

As it turns out, 96% of DNA in an ape is similar to humans, 90% similar to mice, and the closer you get to humanity the closer the DNA appears to be. This is meant to show that we have a common ancestor, which is quite possible. The problem is, the other possibility that Dawkins is not considering is that we may have a common creator.

 

DNA could similarly be evidence of a common designer rather than a common ancestor (similar structures often have a similar blueprint). What would the DNA evidence have to look like for Dawkins to say “well we aren’t ancestrally related!”. Would the DNA have to be 50%, 20% similar? The fact is we simply don’t know the answer to this but Dawkins has already ruled out the only other possibility from natural causes.

 

The other possibility is that it’s a non-natural cause or an intelligent cause. But Dawkins has philosophically ruled it out before he has looked at the evidence, which means the only conclusion he can come to is that it must be a natural cause. So to him evolution must be true. It’s a matter of interpreting the evidence!

 

Also, the question in my mind is how we have gotten such a diverse abundance of life in this world without intelligence. The Darwinist claim is that all this life is related.

 

The question must be asked of scientists (as with any other belief system) "What evidence do you have for the position you are taking on this?". The statement "science is the only source of objective truth" claims to be an objective truth, but it's not a scientific truth. The statement is philosophical in nature - it can't be proven by science - so it defeats itself.

 

When it all boils down, we seem to find that bad science results from false philosophy (e.g. naturalism or materialism) at the foundation of their worldview. For a materialist I would ask "How much does Love weigh?". Thoughts, convictions and emotions are not completely materially based. Science is a search for causes that is built on philosophy. Causes are either intelligent or natural but scientists rule out intelligent causes before they even look at the evidence. If a diamond Rolex requires an intelligent cause, then so does thousands of encyclopedias determined in DNA.

​

It should also be noted that not all beliefs can be proven by science. A couple of examples are:

 

1. mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them);

2. ethical judgments (you can't prove by science that the Nazis were evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method);

3. aesthetic judgements (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven), and, ironically;

4. science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself).

 

In a nutshell, I leave you to go on to the next step with this thought: Science is not at odds with the evidence for God, certain scientists are.