Welcome to the first video in an 11 part series titled “Science & the Bible!”. This introduction addresses the question “is science god?” and the problems associated with making science your true god. The “Science & the Bible” series examines the relationship between different disciplines of Science and the Bible and the arguments surrounding this topic.
In this lesson:
Is Science god?
When Science & Philosophy Cross Paths
Twice in the last few years a parent contacted me in desperation. In both cases, their child had thrown their Bible away in the trash can. One child was in high school, and the other was in college. Each parent pleaded with me asking for help. In these two circumstances I asked each parent what their child was now choosing to believe and follow. Both replied telling me that they said, “Science is my god.” The students now claim that they only believe in truth and that science is truth, and thus science is their god.
The popular claim today is, “I don’t believe in God, I believe in Science.”
Why is it that the mainstream today places such importance on the term “science” as the definitive truth of all knowledge? It seems that people are using the term science more in a philosophical sense than a verified truth sense.
Philosophy comes from the Greek word φιλοσοφία, philosophia, meaning the “love of wisdom.” It is a way of thinking or worldview about certain topics such as thought, meaning, existence, ethics, time, and significance. In this light, one can see that it is linked to a general term of science, but hardly are the two terms synonyms.
Philosophy is not universal in its outcomes. In other words, many different philosophies exist and are defended by its followers.
Science should be universal in its proven discoveries that can be tested and observed. But as to what science cannot test and observe easily falls into a more philosophical approach, with defenders and opponents.
Both philosophy and science are in search of the same end cause, that being truth. But truth can hardly be non-absolute.
2 + 2 = 4 This is an absolute and can be tested and observed.
Today, people say that they have their truths and other have their truths, meaning that truth is not universal and varies with individuals.
Some things are absolute and certain, while some things are not.
Science is just uncapable to explaining everything in the universe.
Is Science the true god?
Absolutes & Bias
In trying to answer certain questions, such as the origin of life or other similar scientific questions, scientists often say that they have open minds to explore every possible outcome.
Many scientists frequently try to explain the unexplainable or the unknown without giving the possibility of an Intelligent Designer or God factor even a chance.
A paleontologist finds a fossil of a jellyfish in a rocky area in Wyoming, and declares this jellyfish is millions of years old. Based upon what evidence? It was radioactively dated by various labs and with various radioisotopes. Some of the dates that were yielded by these lab tests show it could be around 350 million old. This scientist also radioactively dates the surrounding rocks and some of the dates also indicate the possibility of the jellyfish being around 350 million years old. Yet no one was there to verify it. Everything if based upon theories.
Now compare this scenario. An archaeologist digging near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem finds a coin in the dirt. When he cleans it up, he finds on one side a portrait of Melkart, a Phoenician god and chief deity of Tyre, and an eagle and mintmark on the other. This silver coin weighs about 13 grams. It is a shekel with markings that prove it was minted in Tyre around 40/39 B.C. Because it was located with many other artifacts that date to the First Centuries B.C. and A.D. there is little doubt of its age or place of minting. Being it was found near the Temple mount, this fits with what eyewitness historians wrote, that this was a common coin used during the time of Christ for the Temple Tax in Jerusalem. It fits the description perfectly.
No one questions the date of this coin because there are ample eye-witness accounts from historians who lived at this time detailing these coins. It also fits the abundance of other eyewitness historical evidence. Thus, the evidence is solid, and no one questions our conclusions that this is an ancient Tyrian shekel of the second Temple period.
What is the point of this example? This was a scientific discovery and was tested with observable evidence; the markings, the numerous written records, the other artifacts found at the site, the recorded historical record of the times, the metal, the location of its resting spot, and more. Scientists can point to many observable and testable sources to get the date of the coin, of which the most conclusive is that the coin actually contains a man-made date stamped on it.
Unlike the coin scenario, no one was around 350 million years ago to verify that this jellyfish is that old. No historian was present 350 million years ago to observe and record the moment the jellyfish died. The testing protocol used by the paleontologist is based upon theories that also cannot be verified by actual observation or witness. The date of 350 million years is a theory based upon an untestable theory, and sometimes the scientist who discovered the fossil has a preconceived bias as to when the jellyfish actually lived. These conclusions are not based upon observable or testable data. It is based upon faith.
Another problem, and this one is huge, is that science is often wrong in its conclusions. Science is constantly morphing and changing its stance on supposed facts. Just pick up an old science textbook from a hundred years ago and read it. One will find numerous errors in it.
Is Science true and unchanging?
Why Science Is Always Changing
In the early 20th Century, scientists were trying to determine what molecule or substance in cells contained the genetics. Today we know it to be DNA, but back then, many scientists were convinced it must be lipids, or some type of protein. They guessed that DNA was too simple to contain the genes necessary for genetics. In short, science was wrong.
Some older biology books will state that sharks are cold-blooded or ectotherms. But in the 1980s it was discovered that some sharks do regulate a higher core temperature than their surroundings. Science was wrong.
Science taught that sharks could see colors and are attracted to certain colors like yellow. Then, after careful examination of the retina of sharks, it was determined that sharks are colorblind. Now, many marine biologists are puzzled for it does appear that sharks do have the ability to see certain colors, but how is not known. Science was wrong and flipflopped its stance.
Science taught the same things about octopuses first declaring that they can detect colors, and then just a decade ago reversing its stance and stating that they are colorblind. But new research has again caused many biologists to suspect that octopuses can indeed see colors. Science was wrong and flipflopped its position again.
Science declared in 1989 that electromagnetic fields and power lines caused cancer. Many scientists wrote papers and articles proposing this, causing the news media to frequently report on this and many celebrities to promote it. But later, after more careful examination of the data, it was determined that this was not true. Science was wrong.
Science declared in August of 1996 that life existed on the planet Mars, even though man has never been there This was headline news all around the world, but it has been debunked by most scientists today. Science was wrong.
Scientists from the FDA stated back in the early 1990s that silicone breast implants were responsible for health risks including cancer, connective tissue diseases, and autoimmune disorders. The implants were banned. Later research found no link between breast implants and these diseases and approved two other companies to begin issuing them again. But in 2019, science reversed it opinion again and recalled some of them. Science does know what the truth is and keeps flipflopping on its stance.
Science used to pronounce that the different RNA types were harmless to each other. But the Nobel Prize was awarded to a scientist who proved that different types of RNA can interfere with other types. Science was wrong.
Many people today claim that they can’t believe in the Bible because science has proved the Bible wrong. Let’s be frank, science does not have a very accurate track record on truth. Centuries of scientific statements and textbooks bear witness to this fact. So, it baffles me that a person will make Science their god, believing that it is the source of truth.
Science and the Bible
Bringing it All Together
In this series on Science and the Bible, we will explore what science is in the Bible and see how accurate this ancient book is. After all, God is the author of the Bible, inspiring and telling these men what to write down.
II Peter 2:20-21 (NET) Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
The original autograph (the Bible) is going to be accurate, because God, unlike man, is perfect. Since He is perfect, everything He tells us is going to be the truth and the science contained in the Scriptures is going to be true.
Please understand, the Bible is not a Science textbook, but since it is God inspired, the Science contained in it is going to be true… no matter what people try to tell us.
True Science is not in conflict with the Bible. Many scientists were firm believers of the Bible and had a relationship with God. Scientists like George Washington Carver, Wernher von Braun, Sir William Ramsay, and Louis Pasteur. It was Pasteur who stated, “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the works of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.”
John 17:17 (ESV) Your word is truth.
Proverbs 30:5 (ESV) Every word of God proves true.