BIOLOGISM - DOCTRINES FORMULATED ON PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE
There is nothing wrong with using science. At least that is true of real science. Paul warns Timothy that not everything that calls itself science really is. (1 Tim 6:20-21) “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: {21} Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.” Read that statement one more time. Don’t ‘oppositions of science falsely so called’ sound an awful lot like humanism, atheism, and evolution.
Science, true science, consists of only those things which mankind can prove with the five senses. There are, as a result, many things which lie outside the realm of science. Which is better chocolate ice cream or vanilla? Science can never answer that. Does God exist? Science can’t answer that either. Did we evolve? Science can never answer that in the affirmative no matter how hard it tries. This doesn’t mean that those questions don’t have answers, only that the answers lie outside the realm of our five senses (sight, touch, taste, smell, and hearing). With those five senses the first question can’t be answered by science because even though we all taste ice cream if we eat it, we don’t all enjoy the same flavor, and some don’t like ice cream at all (hard to believe I know). The second question is somewhat different. Notice, I did not say the existence of God could not be proven one way or the other, only that science could not prove it. There are several evidences of God’s existence. We take the things that are scientifically knowable and then use logic, reason, and rational thinking to draw inescapable conclusions. We must remember that not everything we can know is knowable on the basis of science, even though some so called scientists would never admit that. The third question falls into a category that can be proven false by science, but can never be proven true. Think about the fossil record which would be the only thing science could examine in regards to evolution. Unless some form of evolution happened and was observed by people, then all we have is leftovers.
Here is the problem true science would have with evolution: 1) nobody was there, 2) it is not happening now and cannot be recreated, 3) There would have to be in the fossil record massive numbers of intermediate (meaning half one animal and half another or somewhere in between) fossilized animals, 4) Here is the kicker; even if there were in the fossil record those intermediate forms it would not and could not prove that evolution occurred. Think about it without sensing it, science cannot prove it true. The lack of condition 3 can prove it didn’t happen, but the existence of condition 3 doesn’t prove it did. The reasoning behind this is that in order for something to be a scientific fact all other alternatives must be disproved as well as the proposition you like being proved. For example: If I were to prove that there is oxygen in our atmosphere, and then jumped to the conclusion that our atmosphere is 100% oxygen I would have made a scientific error because I did not prove that there weren’t any other gases in the air. Therefore, even if the fossils evolutionists are looking for so hard did exist they would first have to disprove any other explanations. Well, you may ask, “If they do exist what other explanation could there be besides evolution?” Easy they could quite plausibly be the fossil remains of animals that once existed as a result of creation, but that are now extinct. Just like the dinosaurs, the whale shark, and the dodo bird, God could have created any number of other animals that are now extinct.
Don’t fall into the trap of believing that science can answer all the questions of life, it can’t, and never will be able to. It is fine to use science as far as it goes, but don’t sacrifice faith in God for faith in science. Science when used properly can be beneficial, but be careful. As Paul warned Timothy, false teaching in any form can destroy faith.
There is nothing wrong with using science. At least that is true of real science. Paul warns Timothy that not everything that calls itself science really is. (1 Tim 6:20-21) “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: {21} Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.” Read that statement one more time. Don’t ‘oppositions of science falsely so called’ sound an awful lot like humanism, atheism, and evolution.
Science, true science, consists of only those things which mankind can prove with the five senses. There are, as a result, many things which lie outside the realm of science. Which is better chocolate ice cream or vanilla? Science can never answer that. Does God exist? Science can’t answer that either. Did we evolve? Science can never answer that in the affirmative no matter how hard it tries. This doesn’t mean that those questions don’t have answers, only that the answers lie outside the realm of our five senses (sight, touch, taste, smell, and hearing). With those five senses the first question can’t be answered by science because even though we all taste ice cream if we eat it, we don’t all enjoy the same flavor, and some don’t like ice cream at all (hard to believe I know). The second question is somewhat different. Notice, I did not say the existence of God could not be proven one way or the other, only that science could not prove it. There are several evidences of God’s existence. We take the things that are scientifically knowable and then use logic, reason, and rational thinking to draw inescapable conclusions. We must remember that not everything we can know is knowable on the basis of science, even though some so called scientists would never admit that. The third question falls into a category that can be proven false by science, but can never be proven true. Think about the fossil record which would be the only thing science could examine in regards to evolution. Unless some form of evolution happened and was observed by people, then all we have is leftovers.
Here is the problem true science would have with evolution: 1) nobody was there, 2) it is not happening now and cannot be recreated, 3) There would have to be in the fossil record massive numbers of intermediate (meaning half one animal and half another or somewhere in between) fossilized animals, 4) Here is the kicker; even if there were in the fossil record those intermediate forms it would not and could not prove that evolution occurred. Think about it without sensing it, science cannot prove it true. The lack of condition 3 can prove it didn’t happen, but the existence of condition 3 doesn’t prove it did. The reasoning behind this is that in order for something to be a scientific fact all other alternatives must be disproved as well as the proposition you like being proved. For example: If I were to prove that there is oxygen in our atmosphere, and then jumped to the conclusion that our atmosphere is 100% oxygen I would have made a scientific error because I did not prove that there weren’t any other gases in the air. Therefore, even if the fossils evolutionists are looking for so hard did exist they would first have to disprove any other explanations. Well, you may ask, “If they do exist what other explanation could there be besides evolution?” Easy they could quite plausibly be the fossil remains of animals that once existed as a result of creation, but that are now extinct. Just like the dinosaurs, the whale shark, and the dodo bird, God could have created any number of other animals that are now extinct.
Don’t fall into the trap of believing that science can answer all the questions of life, it can’t, and never will be able to. It is fine to use science as far as it goes, but don’t sacrifice faith in God for faith in science. Science when used properly can be beneficial, but be careful. As Paul warned Timothy, false teaching in any form can destroy faith.
RSS Feed
