Exploding the Myth of Scientific Objectivity
by P.E.Hodgson & C.C. Warren, M.A.Biochem.(Oxon)
There is a great myth which surrounds the discipline which we have come to call "Science". People assume, quite wrongly, that if the scientific community (whatever that in reality may be) arrives at a consensus that it must be speaking the "truth" and that all religious doctrine must confirm to this "truth". What they perhaps do not realise is that behind the ideas of science are alot of religious presuppositions.
Science and its Presuppositions
Scientists like to tell the public that Science is completely self-sufficient and that it needs no religious underpinning of any kind. They claim that Science is somehow its own independent system of truth which cannot, when its methodology is properly followed, be flawed. Unfortunately for scientists (which both of us are), science is not self-sufficient and it rests on certain critical presuppositions. To better understand Science we must therefore examine these presuppositions and discover from whence they are derived.
The History of Science
Science as we know it appeared in 17th century Europe, quite recently in man's history. This alone suggests that it is a secondary activity, in the sense that it requires certain conditions before it can begin. Had science been a primary activity it would have been around from the beginning.
To investigate what these conditions are we can proceed (1) introspectively; (2) historically; and (3) by examining what scientists have to say.
1. An Introspective View of Science<
Before he can begin science, a man must have certain beliefs about the world:
(a) That there is a world, and that it is ordered, rational, contingent and intelligible to the human mind;
(b) That it is good to study it, and to share our knowledge.
These beliefs are not obvious, and indeed they are rarely found together in human history. They need to be deeply held by the whole community. Therefore if we are honest we are obliged to say that behind science there lies a belief system which cannot absolutely be proved. And since it cannot absolutely be proved, it lies outside the realm of science per se and belongs to the sphere of philosophy and religion. Science, at its root therefore, is religious.
2. An Historical View of Science
There have been many ancient cultures, often of great teachnical skill, but in none of them did science really develop. Why? An important start was made by the Greeks, and although their science died out, their ideas came to Western Europe through the Arab world, and were an important ingredient in the rise of modern science. Another strong influence in the religious belief of the Western European community. Indeed, all the beliefs summarised above are essentially Christian.
3. Some Scientists' Views of Science
(i) Einstein: "Belief in an external world, independent of the perceiving subject, is the basis of all natural science...Without the belief that it is possible to grasp reality without theoretical constructions, without the belief in the inner harmony of our world, there could be no science. This belief is and always will remain the fundamental motive for all scientific creation."
(ii) Oppenheimer: "We cannot make much progress without a faith that in this bewildering field of human experience there is a unique and necessary order."
(iii) Whitehead: "The belief in a personal Creator implanted in the European mind the inexpungnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope. It is this instinctive conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power of research: that there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled...This faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."
Science, in its foundation, is essentially a religious quest even though this may have become, as Whiethead remarks, unconscious today. And that religious quest is basically a Christian one. Upon this forgotten Christian foundation, new layers of religious and philosophical belief have been put down - atheism/humanism (secular Darwinism) and the relatively modern New Age/Hindu religious view. Needless to say such an interface, forgotten and largely invisible though it may be (between Christianity and humanism/New Ageism) creates conflicts and absurdities within the scientific paradigm itself. Thus the atheist must explain order in the Universe by going to extraodinary uses of etymological acrobatics (playing with words) and inventing the most absurd and untestable hypotheses (Hopeful Monsters, bizzare thermodynamic models, etc.). In his attempts to expunge science's Christian roots he nevertheless is still forced to use words like "creation" to describe the incredible world around him for in reality there is no equivalent term in the atheist vocabulary ("the beauty of evolution" instead of the "beauty of creation" - even the concept of "beauty" is religious) .
Science is essentially a Christian endeavour which has been hijacked by atheists and New Agers claiming to be the "true scientists". The truth is that they are the imposters. And each time they have tried to arrive at a philosophy of science that reflects pure atheism or New Ageism they have failed. For if the order of the world is an abberation (atheist) or illusion/maya (New Ager) and therefore ultimately unintelligible (as such scientists are forced to conclude), then the whole purpose of science loses its meaning and can no longer be properly harnessed to serve human needs. As it stands, science, notwithstanding its beneficial spin-offs, now exists primarily to serve human greed and the lust for power and control. Already at the beginning of this 21st century we see where, for example, the scientific "revolution" is taking us (and indeed where it has already taken us) - towards a slave society run by a self-serving élite corps of atheistic technocrats who are a religious priesthood built on a twisted, yet predictably denied, foundation of Christianity.
True science was parented by Christianity and ultimately belongs to it too. Modern science and its modified philosophical underpinnings is the bastard child of a blind adulterous date between paganism and Christianity. It needs Christianity to have a rational purpose yet must at the same time deny its own rationale in order to justify its rebellion. Most modern scientists, with the exception of most of the Creationist Scientists, are but imposters and we need be no more impressed or intimated by their evolutionary philosophy than we are with that ancient but silly Egyptian superstition that scarab beetles were made spontaneously out of dung. Do not be baffled or awed by their long-winded terminology and verbal fencing. But rather, after a serious scientific study of your own, react to it as you would to Marry Poppins' "supercalifraglilisticexpiallidocious" (sic!) and laugh at the absurdity of it all. After all, that's what God is doing (Psalm 59:8).
This page was created on 24 January 2001
Last updated on 24 January 2001
Copyright © 1987-2007 NCCG - All Rights Reserved