The Epistemology of the
Natural Sciences: False Objectivity and Inductive Reasoning
All knowledge comes
through information from others (speaking or writing),
Scriptural revelation (God writing) or through inductive
reasoning from observations. The last method can never give us
settled truth. (Or, as Francis Schaeffer said, “true truth.”)
Therefore, it follows, that unless one can deductively
determine knowledge of these sciences from Scripture, one does
not have a settled truth. That is the epistemological argument.
Examples may help, but they only illustrate what is a sound
argument in itself. (For definitions of induction and deduction
is not a settled science. Evolutionary pseudoscience is
the most obvious, but not the only example. We piddle around on
the beach, play in the waves, and declare that we understand the
oceans. Relative to tides around the world: some locations have
two tides per day, some have one tide per day, and still others
has been said to be a "closed science," in the sense that
everything in it is reducible to physics, the atomic "shells,"
valences, etc. These account for “chemical” reactions. So,
examples in physics will suffice for chemistry. Organic
chemistry (the realm of living things), however, has
complexities which render the theoretical reduction to physics
essentially irrelevant. An astounding example is the “ribbon
diagram” of a streptococcal and staphylococcal (two kinds of
bacteria that infect humans) super antigen -- a rough model --
of the structure of just one immune molecule. Huge and complex!
And, the body has dozens of these.
is given away by its scientists who foray into cosmology --
theories of black holes, worm holes, Big Bang, string theory,
multiverses, the wave/particle theory of light, etc. They are
aggressive in their desire to erase any tiny remnant of a
requirement for a Designer. Physicists cannot give a coherent
account of gravity or time. They discourse and debate a great
deal about a grand unified theory, uniting electromagnetism,
gravity, and matter but such discussions are incoherent. You can
watch their atom (Greek for that which cannot be split or
divided) continue to get split into more and more exotic
particles than quarks and the rest of their imaginary particle
zoo. Some of their "explanations" make Zen Buddhism seem
sensible by comparison. They take their notion of the
uncertainty of the position of an electron in its peri-nuclear
shell and expand that into a notion that everything is random.
observations and experience of Gordon H. Clark:
scientists abandoned every one of Newton's laws, even the
basic assumption that space and time are independent
frameworks within which things move. Everything the
Physics Department of the University of Pennsylvania taught
me in 1921 has now been discarded. Lord God of Truth and
Concerning the Teacher, 1994, page 36.
These “scientists” are
godless and are out to prove that there is no god by great leaps
of faith in their own reasoning and flimsy theories. They
present a form of 21st century witchcraft! They extrapolate
beyond all sensibilities. They have measured the velocity of
light in our corner of the universe for about 150 years --
results that are inconsistent and vary a great deal. They
inductively conclude that our time-limited, location-limited,
and methodology-limited "constants" for the velocity of light
are accurate for all space and time. What hubris!
is different. It is not a
natural science at all. It is a set of decisions about how to
relate anything quantitatively. It is composed of sets of decisional rules
which are created to correlate with our observations in nature. The
Fibonacci number series, found ubiquitously in nature, is
absolutely intriguing. The epistemological argument for
mathematics would look like this: How do you know that two plus
two equals four? Either it is revealed in Scripture (there are
short books to establish this by deduction from passages here
and there --Numbers for one) or one inductively notices that
every time one counts and combines two with two others, one can
then count four. Every time we go through this process, we
inductively conclude that it is always going to be four, even
for items not yet counted and combined. Philosophers like to say
that such things are "intuitively true" or words to that near
effect. That is just cheating to avoid saying that these things
are inductively "true." Mathematics has its zoo as well.
For example, what is the "meaning" of the square root of a
While on some practical
and superficial level, some natural sciences may be considered
to be “objective,” at a deeper and cosmological level,
scientists “faith” in a godless universe and their giant leaps
of reasoning are laid bare.
* My thanks to Hilton
Terrell for these insightful thoughts, first presented in an
email to me.
Thoughts on Science as Truth
argument that the appearance of the universe being old is
deceptive and that God would not deceive in this way.
(1)Duh! He told us how and when He created in Genesis 1 and 2!
What person is able to deceive by telling the truth, unless the
listener is willing to be deceived!
the Big Bang did occur, as it is theorized, and you were
there one second after it occurred, you could not tell
whether it was one second old or 25 billion years old.
Your decision of age would be based upon your own
assumptions of the facts. The facts do not interpret
problem of what my senses tell me. "We must 'override
the apparent evidence of our senses' all the time in life... My
senses tell me that the earth is flat and still and that the sun
goes around the earth. My senses tell me that a friendly
looking lion in the zoo wants me to pet him My sense tell
me nothing about the way my computer works. Anyone who has
ever observed a court case involving many witnesses knows that
people's observations and senses can be very incorrect...
Moreover, our senses tell us nothing about the history of the
cosmos. Our senses react to pain and light and sound,
but they have nothing to do with grand philosophical cosmogonic
schemes. It is not the "apparent evidence of our senses"
that Genesis 1 may "override," but rather the highly rarified
philosophies of our sin-twisted reason.... It is analogous to
Jesus turning water into wine in Cana. The "evidence of
our senses" would say that the wine had been made the usual way
over a long course of time. (Indeed the attendees senses did
indicate such —
Ed.) ... The same is true
regarding the events of the creation of the world." (James
Jordan, Creation in Six Days, Canon Press, 1999, page
should understand the difference between understanding and
pragmatic value. Modern man, beginning with Thomas
Edison, has marvelously learn to use electricity, but there are
still considerable mysteries about how it works.