The Scientific Method

In this section:  Chance or Design? •  The Scientific Method • Life in a Test Tube? • The Eye • Irreducible Complexity • Anything Can Happen? • Evolution or Selection? • Real Examples of Evolution • "Do You Feel Lucky?" • (Abio)Genesis 1:1 • Life from Comets? • Life on Mars? • Richard Dawkins • A Brief History of Slime...

Do we seek with complete objectivity?

Two logical possibilities for life's origins:
With purpose or by chance

From a purely logical perspective, there are two possibilities as to the origin of life:  It was either created by an outside source or it happened on its own.

We describe this outside source as the supernatural, or God.  We attribute life happening on its own to a natural phenomena, or evolution.

Can evolution limit itself to just one answer?

In every other scientific pursuit, the scientific method requires that we identify and explore all reasonable possibilities, seeking evidence for and against each hypotheses.  But the discipline of science, by definition, has limited itself to "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena." There's just one little problem here.  Can you see it?

Without the scientific method
are the conclusions valid?

There is no way to observe the origin of life on earth, and thus no way to conduct experimental investigation or to describe the process involved. All science can do is to develop the most plausible explanation of life originating as a natural phenomenon, even if it's completely wrong! So how can science ever know if it has the right answer if it won't explore both possibilities for life's origin?  There are several solutions to this problem:

• Acknowledge that this is one field where science cannot legitimately participate due to its own limitations

• Expand the scope of scientific investigation to include the supernatural

• Redefine what we call supernatural

20th century evolution science refused to explore the creation alternative on the grounds that it is supernatural and thus outside the bounds of science.  But who sets that boundary?   Is the boundary fixed or does it just represent the limit of our current understanding?  Significant scientific discoveries in the past have often forced us to move the boundaries.  Illnesses once thought to be caused by spirits are now known to be due to micro-organisms.  Even Einstein had difficulty accepting the truth of quantum mechanics.

This may sound far-fetched, but this idea isn't totally outside the realm of scientific thinking, as evidenced by these quotes:

STEPHEN HAWKING

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron.  ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

SIR FRED HOYLE, ASTROPHYSICIST

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggest that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers (i.e., probabilities) one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

Perhaps one day we'll see every experience of mankind as being natural, from miracle healings to the life giving spirit of God, our Creator.

Perhaps one day we'll see everything as supernatural, realizing that nothing is "natural," but that every physical law that allows life to exist has been put in place, and is maintained, by our Creator.

In this section
 Chance or Design? •  The Scientific Method • Life in a Test Tube? • The Eye • Irreducible Complexity • Anything Can Happen? • Evolution or Selection? • Real Examples of Evolution • "Do You Feel Lucky?" • (Abio)Genesis 1:1 • Life from Comets? • Life on Mars? • Richard Dawkins • A Brief History of Slime...