#1. To pursue science is not to disparage the things of the spirit. In fact, to pursue science rightly is to furnish a framework on which the spirit may rise. –Vannevar Bush, speech at Massachusetts Institute
This can only be true if science was allowing itself to be guided by what was right, true and honest and since most of the member of the scientific community have shoved God out the back door and invited evil in the front, that idea expressed in that quote is impossible. Science cannot provide any sort of framework for the spirit when it presents lies instead of the truth.
The key word in that quote comes right after the word ;science’ and to keep it in context we will use more than one word ‘to pursue science rightly‘. This sounds good but the problem arise when we understand that the key word ‘rightly’ can be very subjective. Whose idea of ‘rightly’ is going to be used and is it the right definition of the word?
If someone decide to use the secular definition then science loses at the get go because the secular definition of the word ‘rightly’ does not include God and he i the only one who can direct that field to do things rightly. Secularists do not own the field of science and have no authority to declare which definition of that word is to be used.
Only the believer can bring the correct definition to that field and set it on the right path to follow.
#2.The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses. –Albert Einstein
And we see that taking place as Stephen Hawking and other physicists try to create a Grand Theory of Everything. Little did Einstein and little do other physicists like Hawking know, is that we already have the smallest amount of hypothesis to cover the greatest number of empirical facts. It is not really a hypothesis but the truth and it starts with ‘In the beginning God…’
Secular scientists wastes everyone’ and their own time trying to be redundant and create something that already exists. But then those who do not believe, and this includes all stripes of evolutionary thought, waste resource, money and time by rejecting the truth and pursuing alternative and false ideas. The super collider is a great example as evolutionists and big bang theorists waste billions of dollars on a machine that cannot produce any answers or even the truth all the while people go to bed hungry and thirsty every night because they have no food, no employment no wells and so on.
Alternative thinking scientists do not help others but are as selfish and self-serving as the LGBT community.
#3. Modern man worships at the temple of science, but science tells him only what is possible, not what is right. –Milton S. Eisenhower
This is another key observation about science. It tells us that the field of scientific research is in need of ethical,moral and right and wrong standards to guide its work, behavior and thinking. The research fields of science do not possess these attributes or characteristics and they need to be imported from a greater source than it. The only greater source is God and the Bible. All human sources are equal and one source is not greater than any other human source.
Morals, ethics and right and wrong must come from one that is greatest of all and who is ethical, holy, moral and right.Science needs to be guided by the correct use of biblical teaching or it is of no value to anyone. Without that guidance science is as blind and deceived as anyone or any other aspect of life and is only the blind leading the blind.
God is the go to and only authority that exists and it is impossible for science to replace him.
#4. A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. –Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography
What can we say he is correct. Scientific truth is not scientific truth because it is true but because a majority of people accept that idea until a better one comes along. Eilat Mazar has stated something similar to this in her book Discovering the Solomonic Walls In Jerusalem when she said:
Indeed, as in any scientific field, conclusions derived from archaeological analysis will hold till better ones come along and replace them (pg. 10)
Truth is non-existent in science unless it is forced upon that field by a group of people tired from hearing all the assumptions, conjectures, leaps to conclusions and so on made by those scientists who pursue their own ideas instead of the truth. The latest story about neanderthals building some mysterious rings underground is a prime example of this. Science is more ridiculous than accurate.
If a believer wants truth, then they need to follow the Holy Spirit to the truth, and that does not restrict the believer to just biblical knowledge but the truth that lies in all areas of life- history, science, archaeology, math, drama and so on.
13However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;
All truth means all truth and science does not have that access to or possession of the truth when it ignores the Holy Spirit.
#5. …the scientific trilogy: observation, hypothesis, experiment. –Morag Coate
Ye but if this trilogy is based upon some unknown error in the process then what is concluded is in error even though the scientist may be unaware he made a mistake somewhere in putting the experiment together. This trilogy is not infallible and can be tricked very easily or misled or it even may miss errors in the process of setting up the experiment. This trilogy is also not omniscient where it knows all things and can spot the truth being replaced by a mistake, nor can it stop personal preference being read into what is being studied and concluded.
It is a very faulty trilogy to base one’s life work upon.