Science Assumes the Natural, Therefore Concludes the Natural

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 | Labels: , | |

The scientific method is a brilliant way to observe and theorize knowledge. It has existed for a very long time, but it has been discussed this week how that method can be hijacked to be used as something it was not originally intended. There are important considerations to point out relating to the scope of the scientific methods capabilities to observe, isolate and elaborate theories.

The methods used by science are limited to natural, observable, and sometimes re creatable tests. These tests are then evaluated time and time again to draw a consensus or a consistency to justify the probability that what it concludes is a credible theory. For example, the classic test of dropping an apple next to a bowling ball to find they hit the ground at the same time illustrates that objects are equally affected by gravitation. To verify the accuracy of this test it is done countless times and the results observed and recorded.

What would happen if the process of nature was violated? What if a supernatural event occurred? Would science be able to verify the event were actually supernatural?

It would be able to verify it is supernatural only under the terms that it violates the natural tests and by the law of non contradiction suggest one of two conclusions:

1) The event was indeed natural, but the methods of science are limited in explaining it.
2) The event violated strongly verified tests of the natural, and therefore was a supernatural event.

An event cannot be both natural and supernatural because by their very definitions they are contradicting points. Let us examine the possibility of an individual coming back from the dead days after their own death. This event would be considered supernatural only because science has collectively observed the impossibility of such an event occurring naturally. So it is supernatural because it contradicts a strongly verified test of the natural.

Science's scope, therefore, is not to analyze the possibility of the supernatural, but to attempt to give every explanation within its methods to prove an event occurred naturally - and if it cannot do so, then by the law of contradiction, conclude it was supernatural or that it is still natural yet science is too weak in that particular field to test how.

In a round-a-bout way we have come to an important bias in science. All events are assumed to be natural until every effort of science fails to give an acceptable explanation as to how it occurred naturally therefore rendering it supernatural. Does this not make perfect sense with the theory of the origins of man?

Abiogenesis, or the study of origin of life through the lens of the scientific method must first assume life came about naturally, and then create tests and theories based upon that assumption. For an individual from the outside to suggest "In the beginning, God..." violates the very rules of the scientific method. Science, therefore can only conclude that man originated from both probable chance and from mud, because before man there was only mud and if the causation of life must adhere to science it must be probable chance.

It is only when science fails to illustrate a coherent explanation to the probabilistic chances and provide the empirical evidences necessary to prove every theory of the origins of life will science finally admit a supernatural event must have occurred. Science has not yet reached this point in it's theories on abiogenesis. To argue against a scientist against scientific theories regarding the origins of life is to argue with a religious person regarding the origins of life. Both have their feet deeply rooted in their own tests of reality, and neither can admit to the other being correct without evidences necessary to make them stand out of each-others roots.

In other words, if one would like a evolution-scientist to accept creation they would first need to illustrate to the evolution-scientists that their tests have failed in huge respects... impossible for many really because their fallback lands on 'science is still limited, so that is why we have failed to provide the answers to the tests'.

If one would like a religious individual to accept evolutionary abiogenesis - they would need to illustrate the most solidified, blatantly obvious acceptable evidences of origins deriving from mud ranging from both creating intelligence from non-intelligence, better probabilistic chances that have been offered and answers to holes that tend to be poked (they are legitimate philosophical, logical and scientific holes in many many cases) by creationists in the evolution-scientists theories. The outcry from creationists aims more toward demanding stronger evidences before accepting abiogenesis as a verified scientific theory.

The important thing every individual should keep in mind is that science assumes the natural and is adamantly attempting to dis-theorize the supernatural. This assumption is what spawns theories such as evolutionary abiogenesis, it does not, however, give any credit to the possibility of a supernatural event occurring because to do so would be to violate science. So it makes perfect sense that science has only concluded the origins of life spawned from natural means because it is the only conclusion science can draw without being a complete and total failure in verifying the evidences presented by every scientific means possible. Concluding a supernatural event is basically admitting science has failed. One can see why scientists would be reluctant to make such a conclusion.

Craig Chamberlin