Has Science Been Redefined?
“Science… is 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
Question:
Is Science as it is currently defined, UNBIASED in its search for truth?
Has Science Been Redefined?
Examples:
“Some questions are simply not in the realm of science.”
Glencoe Biology
“Supernatural explanations of natural events are simply outside the bounds of science. There is no way to show that such hypotheses are false. Science requires repeatable observations and testable hypotheses. These standards restrict science to a search for natural causes for natural phenomena.”
Prentice Hall Biology
Problem:
Was the beginning of the universe natural or supernatural? Was the beginning of life natural or supernatural? Were the rock layers and fossils formed by a supernaturally caused worldwide flood, or natural processes only? The biggest question: Who decides?
Evolutionist Dr. Jerry Coyne described the observable world we live in this way:
“If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives.” … “Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear.” … the existence of well-adapted organisms and their intricate features surely implied a conscious, celestial designer —God.” … “The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life. What could be more natural than inferring that this fit reflects conscious design?” However, he continued with: “Darwin looked beyond the obvious.”
Look at this statement:
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”
Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401 (6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
Consider this Hypothetical Situation:
The dead body of a woman is discovered. All the evidence seems to point toward her husband. He had motive. He had opportunity. Then a knife is found hidden in their basement that has blood on the blade. It is taken to their forensic scientist for further evaluation.
The knife blade fits the size of the wound. The blood is determined to be the victim’s blood. Fingerprints on the knife are determined to belong to the husband. They are just waiting on the forensic scientist to confirm the cause of death.
Finally, the forensic scientist is ready to give them the cause of death. The scientist says: “All the evidence seems to support the cause of death to be a homicide; the knife is determined to be the murder weapon; and the husband is determined to be the person who inflicted the fatal wound.” However, the scientist then says: “Although all the evidence points to death by homicide, I am going to conclude my findings by saying the woman died of natural causes, because I have been instructed that it is the only cause I will be allowed to consider.”
Now, you tell me, how is that any different than what is taking place in our science classrooms all across America?
Consider this:
“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 (Background in Mathematics and Physics) info@FramesOfReferenceLLC.com
What happened to the classic definition of science?
Science: The search for truth [whatever that truth may be] through the scientific method of repeated experimentation and observation.
Science Redefined as Naturalism: You may search for truth – but only where and how we tell you to. Only naturalistic explanations are allowed.
Is Our Modern Approach to Science Hindering Our Search for Truth?
