top of page

4 Critical Flaws in Scientific Research Today


Flaw # 1 – Our Starting Assumptions

Making assumptions in science is not a bad thing. It is a necessary part of science. But those assumptions have to be very carefully made, or they can lead to the wrong conclusions.

There are three major groups of scientists today:

(1) Those who believe in Natural Process Formation (the majority view)

(2) Those who believe in Directed Purpose Formation

(3) Those who believe in Directed Process Formation (combine the two)

All three groups of scientists tend to proceed on the assumption that their view is the only viable hypothesis to be considered. But I know, it is easy to justify ourselves with the thought: “But, that is okay if I am right!” Beginning with the wrong starting assumptions, however, will lead to flawed conclusions.

Those scientists who embrace a Natural Process Formation assume that the Bible is not true. Those scientists who embrace a Directed Purpose Formation assume that the Bible is true. However, as scientists, should they start out with either assumption?

Flaw # 2 – Not Including All Hypotheses

In making proper use of the Scientific Method, all possible hypotheses should be included, regardless of what we consider their likelihood might be. That is just good science. It is not unusual in science for a hypothesis that is lightly regarded to later be proven to be correct.

“Once a scientist (or anyone else) considers facts through a preconceived filter, the true quest for knowledge stops. The mistake becomes assuming your hypothesis is true, and looking at all evidence in that light. When that occurs, it fails to be science.”

Darrin Yeager. http://www.dyeager.orgtions from the toolbar.

Flaw # 3 – Considering All Science the Same

Should a distinction be made in science today between observational or experimental science and historical science? Why or why not?

Observational Science:

Any science that sets out to describe how something works, using tools of observation and experimentation. Observational hypotheses can be observed, tested, and reproduced in laboratory settings.  Ex: What an eye is, what an eye does, and how we treat an eye for disease.  

Historical Science:

Any science that attempts to piece together past events where there is no direct evidence or eye-witness accounts. Historical hypotheses cannot be repeated and observed; and therefore, certain assumptions will need to be made. Ex: How did we get an eye and why do we have one? There is no direct evidence or eye-witness account.

Consider what it would be like in science today if these two distinctions were clearly recognized.

Flaw # 4 – Not Separating Science from Philosophy

Science has been defined as: “the systematic and unbiased study of the world, including everything that can be seen or detected in nature, man, and society, and the knowledge that grows out of such study.”

The New Standard Encyclopedia

There are three major philosophical worldviews:

(1) Supernaturalism:

The belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, and the belief that our world cannot be explained by purely naturalistic causes.

(2) Scientific Naturalism:

The belief that the natural world, known and experienced scientifically, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance.”

(3) Theistic Naturalism:

The belief that a Supreme Being used natural processes to bring into existence our natural world and all living things, including humans.

Have “science” and “scientific naturalism” come to be regarded as the same thing in science education? Has it always been that way?  What if we got back to a totally unbiased study of the world, including everything that can be seen or detected in nature, man, and society, and the knowledge that grows out of such study?  Wouldn’t that be science as it was meant to be?

bottom of page