There are a good number of things that cannot be scientifically proven but we are all rational to accept:
- Mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them)
- Metaphysical truths (such as, there are minds that exist other than my own)
- Ethical judgments (you can't prove by science that the Nazis were evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method)
- Aesthetic judgments (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven)
- Ironically science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself)
The scientific method of searching for causes by
observation and repetition is but one means of finding truth. It is not the only means of finding truth. Science is built on philosophy. Indeed, science is a slave to philosophy. Bad philosophy results in bad science, and good science requires good philosophy. Why? Because:
- Science cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and, therefore, cannot be the result of them. For example, scientists assume (by faith) that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand the world around us. That cannot be proven by science itself. You can't prove the tools of science—the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity, or the reliability of observation—by running some kind of experiment. You have to assume those things are true in order to do the experiment! So science is built on philosophy. Unfortunately, many so-called scientists are very poor philosophers.
- Philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact scientific conclusions.
If a scientist assumes beforehand that only natural causes are possible, then probably no amount of evidence
will convince him that intelligence created the first one-celled amoeba or any other designed entity. When Darwinists pre-suppose that intelligent causes are impossible, then natural laws are the only game in town. Likewise, if a creationist rules out natural causes beforehand (and we don't know of any who do), then he also risks missing the right answer. But a scientist who is open-minded to both natural and intelligent causes can follow the evidence wherever it leads.
- Science doesn't really say anything—scientists do.
Data are always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their personal preferences or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of the evidence, they do exactly what they accuse religious people of doing—they let their ideology dictate their conclusions. When that's the case, their conclusions should be questioned, because they may be nothing more than philosophical presuppositions passed off as scientific facts.
So, can science prove everything? No.
Made with Bullet