ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Fatal Flaw in Secular Science

Updated on May 16, 2019
david tee profile image

Dr. David Thiessen is an educator, writer, pastor, and speaker. He has authored several books on a variety of topics including Archaeology

Nothing is this world is perfect

People strive for perfection and seem to always fall short in most cases. The reason for this is the presence of corruption in the world today. This corruption entered the world through Adam’s sin and touched every part of life.

This includes the scientific method. No matter how hard scientists try their scientific method will not be perfect. It is not just bias, personal preference, or its limitations and so on that corrupts secular science.

A simplified secular scientific method

Just to remind everyone of what comprises the secular scientific method here is a simplified list of what is involved:

l Ask a question

l Do some research and gather some information

l Create a hypothesis

l Experiment

l Ask and answer questions

l Analyze the data and draw conclusions

It should be mentioned that what every scientist does cannot be conducted in this manner. Some subjects are too large and too far away to analyze in this fashion. For example stars, comets and dinosaurs a few such items.

These limitations do contribute to the rise of the fatal flaw that permeates secular science.

The scope of science

One flaw in the scientific method is the assumption that everything can be studied by science. This is not so. Secular science is very limited in the objects, processes and situations that exist in our world.

One example is that secular science cannot study the past. That is because there are too many missing elements to draw proper conclusions and make the correct tests. Too many assumptions are needed to complete the scientific process and those assumptions lead researchers to false ideas and conclusions.

In other words, the scope of science is very limited and that field can only study those items that are easily investigated. Evaporation, photosynthesis, how crickets chirp and other similar aspects of life fall into the the boundaries limiting the scope of science.

Our origins do not. Secular science is designed only to look for natural answers but that design eliminates too many possibilities to discover the right answer. Secular science does not have the power nor the authority to declare that everything that exists was brought into being only through natural means.

This fact provides the evidence to show that the field has a fatal flaw

The fatal flaw

Some people might think that the arrogance found among scientists is the fatal flaw that ruins the investigative field. That attitude does contribute to the fatal flaw but it is only one of many symptoms.

That arrogance leads many secular scientists to exclude God from their work. For someone reason mankind in general and secular scientists specifically think they know more than God does and know how he he worked in the beginning.

Excluding God from their work means excluding the Spirit of Truth from their laboratories. Jesus told his disciples and us to follow the Spirit of Truth as he will guide us to the truth.

What this instruction tells us is that while the truth is out there we need help finding it. Once we find it, then Jesus told us that we would know the truth. The truth is not a mystery, it is not a treasure hunt, it is not disguised and all of us have the ability to recognize it when we are led to it.

Secular science is not about the truth or the answers

This has been told to me by the many scientists I have had discussions with over the years. Secular science asks questions but never run out of questions even if they have found the truth.

This is the problem of secular science and its fatal flaw. Secular science does not want the truth nor doe sit seek it. Without the truth, secular science is worthless except in those areas that fall within the boundaries marking out its territory.

Secular science can discover how to make cars and make them work well. It can build computers and it can even discover how plants receive nourishment and grow. That is its duty and scope.

But without the truth it cannot provide any answers to those difficult questions that plague mankind. One such question is why do we exist? Secular science cannot answer that question. All it can do is remove hope, remove the answers, and keep people suffering.

Secular science is not an authority

In spite of the things that science can do, it is not an authority on any subject known to man. It is merely a tool to help man survive on this planet. Science is not the final word on anything as even its discoveries are flawed.

One good example is modern medicine. Science may come up with medications but many of those medicines come with devastating side effects that are worse than the disease.

Science also cannot stop death from taking place, even if the doctor is successful in using scientific technology to revive a patient. That patient will eventually die. Some very public examples are John Wayne who used to say he beat cancer, only to succumb to the disease about 15 years later.

Another is Mickey Mantle who received a liver transplant only to die shortly thereafter. Even with all the good things in life it has invented, secular science has found more devastating ways to kill people.

From mustard gas to guns to nuclear bombs, science has done little to preserve life on this planet.

Some final words

Without God leading science and the scientist, then both are vulnerable to the deceptions and attacks that come from evil. Without Jesus as their savior secular science and scientists are the blind leading the blind.

The latter does not even know that they are walking down the wrong paths seeking the wrong answers in the wrong places. The fatal flaw of science is that they do not have the truth and do not want it part of their work.

When you kick God and the truth out of your work, you have little hope of finding what you are looking for. Unless God takes mercy on you and lets you find it so you can see the error of your ways.

Unfortunately, the arrogance of secular science and scientists does not let them do just that. They remain stubborn, thinking they know more than anyone else when in reality,they know very little.


© 2019 David Thiessen

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      5 days ago from Philippines

      I have answered your question. There is no such thing as evolution. Never was and never will be. It is you and other evolutionists who do not understand what God did at creation.

      You are also influenced by evil so you cannot see the truth. There is not one evolutionary action taking place today.

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      5 days ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      A made-up process? Made up by who, exactly? Will you answer my question and say why you cannot accept the truth of what actually happens in nature? There are countless examples of evolution happening all the time - if only you will open your eyes and see reality for what it is.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      5 days ago from Philippines

      it doesn't. It is a made up process by those who reject the truth

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      5 days ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      I wonder what you mean when you say that evolution does not exist? The process is - at heart - very simple. If you divide a population of the same species and place one of the divisions in a different environment from the first, those environments providing different survival challenges, the two populations will develop different characteristics over time and genetic variations (which occur all the time) lead certain individuals to have a better chance of survival and pass on their genes to following generations. This is the basis of evolution.

      What is it about that scenario that you cannot accept?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      6 days ago from Philippines

      That is the deception and the world has been falling apart

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      6 days ago from UK

      People have managed perfectly fine without Biblical influences and the world has not fallen apart.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      6 days ago from Philippines

      if it wasn't for God and the Bible men and women would not know what they were supposed to do or how to act

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      6 days ago from UK

      Cowardly? Don't make me laugh. You're the one who hides behind religious texts rather than facing facts. Such as with your breastfeeding article.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      6 days ago from Philippines

      no what it tells everyone is that you refuse to critically analyze your own processes and are too cowardly to see the errors and vulnerabilities in your evolutionary concept

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      6 days ago from UK

      All that tells me is that you don't understand what evidence is, or how it is processed.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      6 days ago from Philippines

      As I said, the concept of evolution is read into the specimens used to prove that the process exists.. Evolutionary experiments are not exclusive. They cannot and do not prove that other processes are not responsible for producing the results.

      predictions are not evidence but merely a tool used to manipulate people into thinking that evolution is real. predictions do not exclude other processes from producing the same results.

      Also, since evolutionary scientists cannot verify one historical claim about evolution, there is no evidence that evolution exists

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      6 days ago from UK

      Whether you repeat yourself or not, it won't matter. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, I provided you with several links that you didn't even bother to read.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      6 days ago from Philippines

      No that is an assumption. I am not going to repeat myself as the answer remains the same

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      6 days ago from UK

      There is plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      7 days ago from Philippines

      I do not have to. I spent years studying evolution and already know the answer. Also, I did not misrepresent anything. Evolutionists read into the remains and construct their own idea of evidence.

      There is absolutely no evidence for evolution as that process does not and never has existed.

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      7 days ago from UK

      I imagine you have not read all those articles in the space of the literally seconds it took you to reply, and you misrepresent how evidence works.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      7 days ago from Philippines

      Any so called evidence for evolution is read into the remains and not taken out of it

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      7 days ago from UK

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      7 days ago from Philippines

      There is absolutely NO evidence for evolution and that evidence has not passed every test, themain one being the verification test

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      7 days ago from UK

      There is a lot of evidence for evolution, and so far, it has passed every test required of it. Your refusal to even acknowledge this does not invalidate it.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 days ago from Philippines

      I am not going to get into a debate over semantics. Believers are defined as those who believe in something, in this case and my use, the term refers to Christians who believe God.

      Stop telling me what I already know. And no science does not deal solely in evidence. Evolution is a prime example. There is no evidence for that concept.

      Sceince and scientists are wrong. They do not have the right way of doing things and are desperately in need of a Savior. This is God's creation and that means it is God's rules not science's that apply.

      God says faith is the important factor not evidence. That is the rule that tops science. Science is a creation, a tool not an authority and certainly not above God. What it demands means nothing. What God says and his rules mean everything.

      Even if the majority of religious people do not accept God's creative as recorded in Genesis doe snot mean it did not happen. Oh and believers have provided evidence for creation until they are blue in the face. It is not their fault or God's that they reject the truth

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 days ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      David, The problem with your approach is the word "believers". Science deals with evidence, not belief. It is possible to believe six impossible things before breakfast, but where is the evidence to back up those beliefs? You will never convince anyone to accept your "truth" unless they also share your belief, and that is not the way science works.

      You may believe that the Universe was created 10,000 years ago, but where is the evidence for that? In the Book of Genesis? How does that count as evidence in any sense other than a religious one - and the vast majority of religious people don't accept that either.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      8 days ago from Philippines

      You guys just do not understand. Once believers find the truth, we do not need to keep searching. We found it.

      We believers do not need the blind and the deceived who are stumbling around in the dark to force us to keep searching for answers we have already received

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      8 days ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      Good luck, Ben. However, opening a closed mind is never easy!

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      9 days ago from Philippines

      Sorry I thought I had approved all your comments

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      i am okay just very tired right now. it has been a busy week

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      4 weeks ago from UK

      I am good thanks, thank you for asking. I hope you are well too.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      I read the article at the link. it is filled with the normal distortions and misses the point as usual. But it is a typical response of a science supporter who does not want to see the reality of the field they like

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      oh now I know who you are. It has been awhile. How have you been?

      again you misread what I have written and injected your own thoughts and attacked those. before I approve the link, I will read what you have written

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      4 weeks ago from UK

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      4 weeks ago from UK

      There are many things wrong with how you misrepresent what science is and what it does. You seem so against it, yet in using the internet and a computer, even you have to acknowledge the benefits.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      There is nothing wrong with my arguments but that is your choice

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      4 weeks ago from UK

      Unfortunately for you, I can still highlight your own inherently flawed attitude elsewhere, for everyone to see.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      with that attitude I am not inclined to approve your comments any more

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      4 weeks ago from UK

      I wasn't referring to comments on this site. I am not interested in your doctorate. I shall dismantle your article in the coming days, taking care to ensure the rebuttal is available elsewhere.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      Sorry to disappoint you but I have not touched your comments. I have approved them regardless. It is the weekend for me so i doubt I will be around for few days

      P.S. I hold a doctorate degree in one scientific field so don't tell me what I already know

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      4 weeks ago from UK

      I too don't have a lot of patience for dishonesty. People who edit comments to remove arguments that threaten their position, for example, or people who make some pretty outlandish claims about other people without a, shred of proof.

      I shall take on your article, it is quite similar to ones I have dismantled already.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      One is saying I said something I didn't. Two, is you are off topic and three, you ignore where I said science could do certain things.

      I do not have much tolerance for people who cannot be truthful

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      4 weeks ago from UK

      What games? You were suggesting science cannot deliver objective facts. I have pointed out that we know certain objective facts because of science. You then wanted to move the goalposts to omit the term objective entirely, even it still applies, by the very nature of the term, to anything factual. There is after all, no such thing as a subjective fact.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      I am not and so far you have added nothing to the discussion but played your own games. so get to the point and let's talk about it. Stop beating about the bush

      Stick to the topic of the article as well

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      4 weeks ago from UK

      Equally, there is no reason to dispute the terms in use. There are subjective issues and objective facts. Science has helped determine facts, which are by their very definition objective. I don't understand why you want to play a semantic game in this respect.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      there is no need to add the word objective to the term. a fact is a fact and a fact equals truth. if it isn't true it can't be a fact

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      4 weeks ago from UK

      How can a fact *not* be objective? Why would the statement 'we are made from atoms' be anything other than objective? What is there that is subjective about that statement?

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      no it is not an objective fact, it may be a fact but it is not objective. What is your point? Science was created to explore certain aspects of life but it has limitations, it is not an authority and it cannot explore those things in life that are outside its scope

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      4 weeks ago from UK

      It's not impossible to attain in some respects. Saying matter is made from atoms is objective fact. We know this because of science. This is but one of many such facts, as you well know.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      If you have read some of my previous comments you will see that objectivity is impossible to obtain. Science is filled with a lot of bias even if the scientists claim they are objective.

      True objectivity would allow God and Christianity into the experiments, etc. But since science doesn't do that, it can never be objective

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      4 weeks ago from UK

      That wasn't the point David. The point was that science is full of objective facts.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      4 weeks ago from Philippines

      Again you tell me nothing that i do not already know. Being made of atoms and cells does not provide evidence for how we were made.

    • Ben Berwick profile image

      Ben Berwick 

      5 weeks ago from UK

      It is an objective fact, learned via science, that we are made of atoms and cells. There are many other such facts. This is not a question of what is secular or not, but rather, what can be proven using evidence and study.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      5 weeks ago from Philippines

      no it is a matter of fact not faith. Science is not the final authority on anything and is far too limited to make such decisions about origins.

      After those comments i will not approve your words any more. Insulting a person because they hold different beliefs than you is not called for. I have not done that to you.

      Those moral laws you hold to all came from God. Science cannot produce them

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      5 weeks ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      Saying "God created everything" is a matter of faith, not fact. You cannot possibly prove it, just as you cannot possibly prove the existence of God. It has been tried many times, and every effort has "fatal flaws", to use your term. If you think you have a proof, please state what you think it is, and I will happily argue against it.

      My own belief is that God does exist, but only inside the heads of people like yourself who believe that he does. You have had some sort of mental episode that you have interpreted as the "voice of God" - it is not uncommon, it has happened to millions of people down the centuries, and it does NOT mean that I am accusing you of having a mental illness of any sort - far from it.

      But that is all it is. It has not happened to me, maybe one day it will. If and when it does, however, I will know exactly how to deal with it, and it will not lead me to suddenly become a God-believer.

      I do not condemn or despise believers for believing, because I know that many of them do amazing things for the good of their fellow human beings, as a result of having their faith. On the other hand, there are also many believers of all religious persuasions who use their religion as justification for doing terrible things. These are two sides of the same coin.

      As for me, I was brought up in a Church community - sang in a church choir and even taught in Sunday School at one time. I love to visit medieval cathedrals and listen to Church music, these being the products of Christian faith from past centuries. But I have come to realise that faith is an illusion and that life without it is so much better. One can live a perfectly moral and honorable life without having to feel guilty for so-called "sins" or having to sign up for an absurd set of beliefs that make absolutely no sense when closely examined.

      As for science, it certainly aims at objectivity, even if not all scientists achieve it. What it does is establish methods that can prove theories and which can be repeated in such a way that identical results will occur. That is what objectivity means in science.

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      5 weeks ago from Philippines

      Do you not think that secular is also a bias? Even Dr. William Dever has stated that objectivity is impossible.

      Scientists are NOT objective. God did create everything. Science can't change that no matter how much you manipulate the field.

      there is a time when the questions stops. all science is doing is keeping people trapped in their sins and that is not good nor what God intended science to be

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      5 weeks ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      No, I have not missed the point. I simply disagree with the point you are making. Science must be secular, because when you bring religion into it you remove objectivity, and science must always be objective.

      The whole purpose of scientific enquiry is to discover the truth about the world (and beyond) in all its aspects. It cannot start by jettisoning all its methods by saying "God created everything".

      Of course there will always be questions, because every answer leads to new questions. That is the whole wonder and beauty of science, and long may that be the case!

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      5 weeks ago from Philippines

      Again you miss the point and do not add to the discussion

    • John Welford profile image

      John Welford 

      5 weeks ago from Barlestone, Leicestershire

      Science is about discovering objective truth, by which is meant coming up with procedures that are repeatable and therefore acceptable by anyone, whatever their subjective beliefs might be. That is why it has to be done without recourse to "God".

      God might exist, but because his existence is unprovable, he cannot enter into scientific processes.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)