Can you even have science without God? – IOTW Report

Can you even have science without God?

American Thinker:

By Hunter Kallay

Society’s latest buzz phrase is “trust the science!”  This phrase has been tossed around like a political football for the past two years.  What if we get away from the ideological usage of this phrase and take this as an opportunity to think more deeply about where science even came from?

Today, many scientists who shape public opinion are materialists.  They believe that the world and human life are the product of unguided, random, natural processes.  However, historians of science have asked where scientific methodology came from, and they have found it to be rooted in Western culture’s Christian understanding of nature, opposed to a materialistic understanding of nature.  To understand why this is, one must look at the foundation of scientific methodology.

Contrary to what many believe, science is not just a set of facts.  Rather, science is a method to discover truths about nature.  As a methodology, science assumes two underlying truths.

Assumption 1: There is an order to the universe.

The whole purpose of science is to discover the order of the universe, so science cannot even get off the ground unless that order is affirmed.

The problem for the materialist is that if the world is purely material, then there is no logical account of universal, rational laws, but rather, all of nature is a result of random, unguided, patternless forces.  There are no rules to the game the universe plays, and any attempt at trying to discover a rule is like trying to predict the winning lottery numbers. more

22 Comments on Can you even have science without God?

  1. “Real” science is always replacing itself with new theories that better match measurements (i.e. by definition never settled). One major problem with science these days, is they have abandoned evidence and reproducible experiments. Take string theory and physics in general. We can validate general relativity (large scale physics) and quantum theory (small scale physics) to 12 decimal places, both of them. Problem is, the contradict each other so we know one is wrong. The best candidate for a “unified field” theory, is presently string theory. The problem with string theory is it can’t be experimentally validated, i.e. measured. So physics, the mother of science is completely fucked. What do you think happens to medicine, chemistry, biology, psychology, etc… if physics science if fucked!

    4
  2. No onto the God question. Although the Big Bang theory is physically and mathematically coherent with measurements, it still requires the miracle of everything being created out of nothing. We have had to fudge it with “dark matter” and “dark energy” that we have no fucking clue what it is. I believe in the talking serpent, seems more plausible to me.

    4
  3. You cannot have science with progressives around period. What you get is “science,” i.e. a politicized mockery of science. It is a scandal and a disgrace in it’s own right to even consider the the latter as anything but pure unadulterated exploitation and opportunism of individuals who are two stupid to understand there is a difference in kind, nto a difference in degree between the two.

    “Science” is the antithesis of science

    9
  4. Believe the science, except when it says a man can not become a woman, when it identifies when human life begins, when it defines what a vaccine is, and when it contradicts the notion that man will kill the planet in 12 years.

    Science is one of those accommodating principles; when it aligns with my beliefs, it is real. Oh, and it’s racist too.

    7
  5. I agree with JDHasty, what made science great at the turn of the century was it was self correcting nature by being the antithesis of science. String theory has become a physical theory with beautiful mathematics that is pure mental masturbation without reproducible experimental evidence. Hell, we haven’t even been able to reproduce the moon landing (I hear some flat earther’s waking up). Reproducible experimental evidence supporting hypothesis and thesis is real science and the scientific method. Critical XXX bullshit and Marxism has infiltrated academia.

    4
  6. Phil Swill
    MAY 16, 2022 AT 5:48 PM
    “I believe in the talking serpent, seems more plausible to me.”

    …you can see talking serpents any time someone from DC lectures us and takes away our God-given rights.

    12
  7. Phil Swill
    MAY 16, 2022 AT 5:48 PM
    “I believe in the talking serpent, seems more plausible to me.”

    …the first deceit the Serpent gave Eve was the statement “Ye shall not surely die”, and when she fell for it she invited Death.

    …you know, like with the vaxxines.

    6
  8. If life began in a primordial soup as a random chemical reaction, then why have we had so many different types of life? Did everything start as one type of being, and then evolve into other beings? If so, why would anything choose to be food while others chose to be predators? And to be fair, I probably wouldn’t have chosen to be a small, slow, fairly weak being with a big brain and no defenses like horns, teeth or claws when something like “large crocodile” was available.

    Speaking of crocodiles, why aren’t they ruling the world since they’ve been around as long or longer than almost everything else? You would think that sometime in the last 200 million years some crocodile lurking around a mud bank would think “this sucks,” and evolve into something with a bigger, better brain so they could boss other life forms around and make them easier to eat. Or maybe they did evolve into something with a bigger, better brain, developed coal plants and SUVs, and thus caused the ice age that enveloped much of north America – which doesn’t explain why they are now still lurking around mud banks waiting for wildebeests and zebras when a lot of other species were wiped out by extinction events.

    I have lots of questions like these, which is probably why my school teachers told me to shut up and just memorize the laws of science they were teaching.

    10
  9. There are no laws in science! All science is theory asking to be disproven based on the scientific method. Laws of science are just science with shit tons of experiments backing up the theories. They are not really laws. Evolution theory fails at macro-evolution, i.e. genome jumping. Micro-evolution is provable, i.e. adaption. The fossil record is a joke for macro-evolution.

    6
  10. Society’s latest buzz phrase is “trust the science!”

    Scientists revealed that there’s no water on Mars, they were mistaken. So, what else are they mistaken about? We’ve got a Supreme Court Judge that can’t define what a woman is, educated just like scientists, why should I trust her judgement? I don’t put my faith and trust in man that’s for sure. I trust God. I’ve seen more proof of His existence than what Science can explain about his creation.

    8
  11. As a so-called science, Darwinism has more holes in it than Bonny and Clyde together ended up with.

    Darwinian true believers are trying to delay it’s death by any means possible, infinite multi universes being a more recent effort. It gets around the problem they have with the Big Bang theory, which implies a Big Banger, AKA God.

    7
  12. Love this topic! No, there is no science without God. No, God is not “religion”.

    One of my favorite Christian apologetics lecturers is John Lennox, professor of mathematics at Oxford (emeritus). He has written many books on the subject of science and religion. https://www.johnlennox.org/

    2
  13. There are descriptions and patterns and explanations… and then there is a First Cause.

    There is science… and then there is God.

    2
  14. The purpose of “real” science is skepticism. Falsify, theories. Ask questions that implicate problems with existing theories. Question authority. Question everything. Measure, experiment and repeat experiments. This is our true future. Science is beautiful when not polluted with politics.

    5
  15. @Phil Swill

    I understand your perspective.

    Lately, I have been having doubts about even micro-evolution. One of the cases that is used to validate micro-evolution is the dark-moths/light moths example in the UK. The way the Darwin boys trot that out is that there was evolution from light to dark moths as a result of the Industrial Revolution when soot covered building and trees, making dark moths harder to find by birds and which therefore allowed them to quickly multiply, while light-colored moths became easier to find and catch and almost led to their extinction.

    But white and dark moths always existed. The ancestors of dark months…were dark moths. It was only a half-assed evolution, which required no mutation. The rest of it, the better fit of the dark moths in that environment, is only a part of the story, and is not, IMO, an example of Darwism.

    Similarly, different types of finches in the Galapagos does not mean a mutation happened, but the natural selection based on the sizes of finch beaks to better fit their environment does apply, IMO.

    The big names in the ID world have conceded micro-evolution, but I have doubts about it.

    1
  16. I’ll stick w/ Einstein …

    “Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not the true Jacob. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the secrets of the Ancient One. In any case, I am convinced that He does not play dice.”

    but, what does he know? … he’s got the ‘e’ before ‘i’ in his name twice!

    1
  17. Another hilarious tale from the Darwin tribe is the one about the Madagascar deep throated Star Orchid and the long tongued moth that coexists with it. They call it co-evolution. The moth is able to reach way down in the flower’s gullet for nectar, and that’s where the pollen is. The moth gets a meal, flies away, spreads the pollen, and the orchid gets to propagate.

    OK so far. The Darwin gang says they evolved together. So one of them must have taken the first step, say it was the orchid that for some reason started growing longer necks, followed by the evolution of the moth, which luckily happended to have a few of their bunch mature with longer toungues, allowing them to reach the sweet spot in the orchid, and thus better able to survive. So for millions of years they did a dance around each other, the orchid grew longer throats and the moth followed by growing longer tongues. The two species kept in sync for eons, with nobody to intrude and wreck their little fandango.

    A much better and actually a more parsimonious explanation is that God designed them that way and put them in Madagascar to live and help each other survive. They have done so without any Darwin explanation.

    As side issue, the moth (or orchid, not sure) was given a Latin designation by western biologists that included Darwin’s name in it, because Darwin predicted that a long-tounged moth or deep throated orchid woould be found there. Never mind the native Madagascar people who likely observed it for millenia and giving them credit for it.

    A bit of racism there, I think.

    2

Comments are closed.