What Is Science?
Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, January 15, 2026 (Donate)
Science is essential in today’s world—cell phones, rockets,
military, communications, computers, clean water, petroleum products, gas and electric
vehicles, and even church are reliant upon modern technology that was built on
scientific principles.
Royal Enfield's classic-looking Meteor 350 with modern scientific technology; Image by Bodie Hodge
Science in simple terms is a methodology to learn knowledge—even
the anglicized word “science” means “knowledge” from Latin (scientia).
The Basics Of Science
Science is the systematic study of the natural world through
(1) observation, then (2) experimentation, then (3) measurement, and then (4) analysis
and adjustment—oh, and then part everyone forgets—(5) repeat. For those who
recognize this, the method of science never really ends but can go on and on
and on in a repetitive cycle.
It is a process by which man can gain knowledge about the
observable physical world, but we will never, even collectively as mankind
through the ages, be able to be on par with the knowledge of God who is omniscient
(all-knowing). The knowledge of God is perfect and intriguingly, infinite.
Scientists are people who practice or use science (usually
degreed in one way or another). Scientists, who are properly practiced in the methods
of science, desire to understand how the physical world operates in the
present using testable and repeatable methods. You can’t observe or repeat the
past.
This approach is foundational to disciplines such as
physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, materials science, geology, and
engineering, and it has produced extraordinary technological and medical
advances.
However, the word “science” is often used too broadly,
especially in discussions about origins. Not all scientific claims are made
using the same methods or carry the same level of certainty. For this reason, we
need to draw a crucial distinction between operational (observational)
science and origins (historical) science.
One is dealing with knowledge in the present and the other
is dealing with knowledge in the present to help us understand the past. This
is where a bunch of unobserved and unrepeatable assumptions tend to get in the
way of properly understanding the past.
Remember science deals with things we can observe and repeat
in the present, not the past. Understanding this distinction is essential for
evaluating claims about the past and avoiding category errors that misrepresent
what we can use science to legitimately demonstrate. In other words, some try
to use the good reputation of observable or operation science to equate with things
of the past which have not been observed or repeated. This is actually a bait
and switch fallacy in logic.
So it is good to understand that there are different definitions
and understandings of what is often called “science” today.
Operational (Observational Or Repeatable) Science
Operational science refers to scientific
investigation that deals with present, observable, and repeatable phenomena. This
is why operational science is often called repeatable science or observable
science.
It is the kind of science most people think of when they
hear the term “scientific method.” This form of science involves controlled
experiments, direct measurements, repeated testing, and the ability to [probabilistically]
verify or falsify hypotheses through observation.
Operational or Observational Science; Image from Presentation Library
Examples of operational science include:
- Testing
chemical reactions in laboratories
- Observing
gravity, electromagnetism, and motion
- Medical
trials and pharmaceutical research
- Engineering
and materials testing
- Agricultural
experiments and breeding programs
Most people strongly agree with the validity, reliability,
and usefulness of operational science. To the surprise of some, creationists
and evolutionists largely agree in this domain, because operational science is
not dependent on assumptions about the religious concept of millions of years
or deep time or origins. We often work side-by-side doing good science like
this—I’ve worked alongside evolutionary colleagues doing operations science for
a long time.
Our conclusions can be observed in real time and tested by
anyone using the same procedures. This is the kind of science that allows
airplanes to fly, bridges to support weight, how the polio vaccines works, and
electronics to function.
Operational science is repeatable, predictive, and
corrective. When errors occur, they can be identified and addressed through
further experimentation. As such, it produces a high level of confidence in its
conclusions.
Origins (Historical) Science
Origins science, also called historical science,
deals with unobserved past events. These events cannot be repeated or directly
tested because they occurred in history and are no longer accessible to
experimental investigation. Instead, origins science is utilized by scientists
in the present to help them reconstruct the past by interpreting
evidence that exists in the present.
Origins or Historical Science; Image from Presentation Library
Examples of origins science (often discussed by the secular humanists)
include:
- The
origin of the universe
- The
origin of the earth and geological features
- The
origin of life
- The
development of biological diversity
- The origin
of time
- Past catastrophes
Origins science does not follow the same methodological
constraints as operational science. While it still uses real evidence, such as
fossils, rock layers, DNA, and light from distant stars—all in the present—the conclusions
drawn from that evidence depend heavily on assumptions about the past. The
past becomes a worldview issue more than a scientific issue.
For instance, a secular humanist and a creationist could look
at one of the fossiliferous rock layers today (Pennsylvanian Rock Layer for
instance). The humanist could conclude that the rock layer was laid down
millions of years due to their believe of slow gradual accumulations over
millions of years in geology. The creationist, looking at the same rock layer
in the present, would conclude this rock layer was laid down about 4,350 years
ago in a global Flood of Noah’s day.
Same scientific evidence, different worldviews to interpret that evidence; Image from Presentation Library
Notice, it was the same evidence, same rock layer, and two
vastly different conclusions because they have two different worldviews by
which they interpreted the evidence. So, it is more of a worldview/religious
issue than a scientific one. Both can observe the same material structure of the
Pennsylvanian rock layer, observe the same fossils. The scientists cane see
that the layer has the same boundaries, chemical structure, same erosional
features, and so on.
Because no human observed these events, scientists must rely
on historical reconstruction rather than experimentation. This means that the
same physical evidence can be interpreted in fundamentally different ways
depending on one’s worldview or starting assumptions.
The two methods of interpretation come from two different religious
viewpoints—secular humanism—with materialism, naturalism, and evolutionism
versus God’s Word as an eyewitness to the past pointing out a worldwide, global
Flood that would lay down rock layers quickly.
Sadly today, some even define the word “science” as the religion
of naturalism because of this. This again, shows a bait and switch fallacy.
But really, the issue is trusting God about what happened in the past, or a
false religious view of secular history developed in the mind of fallible man. It
comes down to God vs. man—an authority issue.
The Role Of Worldviews And Assumptions
Origins science is inseparable from worldview commitments.
Every interpretation of past events begins with assumptions about what is
possible and how the world operates. Naturalistic assumptions exclude divine
action (i.e., leave God out of it) and therefore interpret evidence within a
purely material framework. Oddly enough, the concept of an immaterial
conclusion is not material and thus shows the futility of such an argument
being self-refuting.
Biblical assumptions, by contrast, allow for supernatural
creation and divine judgment as described in Scripture. Disagreements over
origins are not primarily disagreements over the data itself, but over how the
data is interpreted.
Fossils, rock layers, genetic similarity, and astronomical
observations are real and observable, but their meaning is inferred when
dealing with the past. Different assumptions about the past lead to different ideas
about the past.
Same science, different interpretations; Image from Presentation Library
Because of this, I maintain that origins science does not
have the same level of certainty as operational science. While it can provide
plausible explanations, it cannot prove historical events in the same way that
repeatable experiments can demonstrate physical laws. We should leave the past
to eyewitnesses who reported on it—like what God did in His Word.
Why The Distinction Is Important?
The distinction between operational and origins
science is not meant to dismiss science, but to clarify its proper
limits. Many people mistakenly assume that all scientific claims carry the same
dignified weight. When origins claims are presented as if they were directly
observed or experimentally verified, science is being deceptively overstated.
I would suggest humbly that acknowledging this distinction
promotes intellectual honesty. Operational science can be used by scientists to
help us understand how the world works today. Origins science attempts to
explain how things came to be in the past. Confusing the two leads to false
claims of certainty and can deceive listers and learners as to the role of
philosophical and theological assumptions in interpreting evidence.
Francis Bacon And The Scientific Method
Francis Bacon was man who largely developed what later
became known as modern scientific methodology—the Scientific Method. He
did not invent science, but he helped formalize a disciplined approach to
investigating the natural world.
Bacon lived within a Christian worldview that assumed the
universe was orderly, rational, and understandable because it was created by a
rational God. This biblical foundation was essential for the rise of systematic
science.
Portrait of Francis Bacon, early 1600s; Public Domain
Bacon criticized the medieval reliance on Aristotelian/Greek
philosophy which was usually based in abstract speculation. It was often
disconnected from direct observation. Because God promised to uphold things in
a specific way, He argued that nature should be studied through careful
observation and experimentation rather than primarily through inherited
philosophical assumptions of the Greeks.
Bacon promoted inductive reasoning when observing the scientific
world, which moves from specific observations to broader conclusions, as
opposed to purely deductive reasoning based on philosophical premises alone.
His approach encouraged humility before the evidence and restraint in drawing
conclusions beyond what observations justified.
Bacon did not view science as religiously neutral. He
believed that studying the natural world was a way to glorify God by examining
His creation. Bacon distinguished between God’s Word, revealed in Scripture,
and God’s works, revealed in nature, teaching that both come from the same
divine Author and therefore cannot ultimately contradict each other when
properly understood. Of course, we need to understand nature in light of revelation—nature
is suffering under a curse (Genesis 3), but is still upheld by God in a specific
way (e.g., Genesis 8:22).
Scientific investigation, in his view, was a form of
stewardship and a partial recovery of knowledge that had been damaged by the
Fall. From Bacon’s influence we get what is commonly called the Scientific Method.
Of course, it has been modified since his original publication of this method
in 1620 (Novum Organum)
The scientific method is a structured process used primarily
in operational science. It involves:
·
observation of the natural world
·
formulation of a hypothesis
·
experimentation to test that hypothesis
·
evaluation of results and modification
·
repeated testing
Hypotheses are retained, revised, or rejected based on how
well they align with observable evidence. The scientific method functions best
when applied to repeatable and observable processes in the present.
It was never intended to reconstruct unobserved historical
events such as the origin of the universe or life. When applied beyond its
proper limits, the method is often misused to give unwarranted certainty to
origins claims. The scientific method remains a powerful and reliable tool when
used within the boundaries for which it was designed.
The Philosophy Of Science: Science Can Be Used To
“Disprove”, But Not “Prove
Philosophically, science is best understood as probabilistic
rather than absolute. This is what Bacon meant by induction.
Scientific claims are dependent on observation,
experimentation, and induction, not in logical proof in the mathematical or
metaphysical sense. Because scientific conclusions are drawn from limited data
about a complex and changing world, they can never establish certainty, only
varying degrees of confidence.
Before I go any further, let me explain the difference in scientific
definition of thought experiment, hypothesis, theory, and law—because they
are different from common usage.
·
Thought experiment – A mental exercise
used to explore the logical consequences of an idea or scenario without
performing a physical experiment. It helps clarify concepts, test assumptions,
and reveal logical implications, but it does not produce empirical data.
·
Hypothesis – A tentative and testable
explanation for an observed phenomenon. A hypothesis makes specific,
falsifiable predictions that can be examined through observation or
experimentation.
·
Theory – A well-supported explanatory
framework that integrates multiple tested hypotheses and observations—there is
no reasonable evidence against it. A scientific theory explains why phenomena
occur and remains open to refinement as new evidence is discovered.
·
Law – A concise descriptive statement,
often expressed mathematically, that summarizes universally consistent patterns
observed in nature. A scientific law describes what happens under specific
conditions but does not explain why it happens.
Many often suggest today (when they argue against evolution)
that “evolution is just theory”. They
seem to think that this is good way to cast doubt on evolutionary ideas.
However, they don’t realize that theory in science (there is no reasonable
evidence against it) is not defined as a theory in everyday life (which means
“doubtful” idea).
Evolution has plenty of evidence against it and so it’s proper
categorization, scientifically, should be “failed hypothesis”.
Keep in mind that the methods of science can be used to disprove
claims when observations contradict them. A single repeatable observation that
conflicts with a universal claim is sufficient to show that the claim is false
or incomplete.
If a theory predicts that a phenomenon must always
occur under certain conditions, and it does not, the theory fails that
test. Then it goes back to a failed hypothesis.
A lot of people mis an important aspect about science. The methods
of science cannot truly prove a theory to be universally true. No amount
of confirming evidence can guarantee that future observations will not overturn
it. Repeated successful predictions increase confidence (highly probably), but
they do not convert probability into certainty because the entire method is
built on induction.
For this reason, scientific knowledge remains open to
revision. Its strength lies not in delivering final proofs, but in rigorously
testing ideas, eliminating false explanations, and refining models that best
fit observed reality. But if someone says “Science proves X to be true”, then
you should know immediately that they don’t know the finer points for what science
can and can’t be used.
Science Is Predicated On The God Of The Bible
Science is philosophically predicated on a biblical
worldview because the foundational assumptions required for science to function
coherently are derived from Scripture, not from materialism or atheism. Bacon recognized
this to a degree.
Science depends on several core presuppositions: that the
universe is orderly rather than chaotic, that the laws of nature are consistent
over time and space, that cause and effect are real, that human reasoning is generally
reliable, and that sensory observations correspond meaningfully to reality.
Interpretations about the past come down to a battle over authority; Image from Presentation Library
These assumptions cannot be justified by science methodology
itself, because to use science already assumes them in order to operate.
Instead, these are predicated on the Bible being true and that the universe was
created and is sustained by a rational, faithful, and sovereign God—Jesus Christ.
The Bible presents God as a lawgiver who upholds creation in
a consistent manner. Because God is unchanging and faithful, the natural world
behaves in a predictable way, making experimentation and repeatability
possible. Without this expectation of uniformity, scientific investigation
would collapse into skepticism and be useless and meaningless. Uniform laws of
nature are not a conclusion of the scientist but a prerequisite for doing
science at all.
Genesis teaches that humans are created in the image of God.
This provides the basis for trusting human rationality, logic, mathematics, and
moral responsibility in handling evidence. If human thoughts were merely the
product of unguided processes aimed at survival rather than truth, confidence
in scientific reasoning would be undermined.
The biblical doctrine of the image of God explains why human
minds are capable of understanding the world God created. We are made in the
image of an all-knowing God of truth. This is why we can do science and attain knowledge
and process it and recognize truth.
Historically, modern science arose in cultures shaped by
biblical Christianity. I affirm that science is not religiously neutral. Its
foundational assumptions about order, logic, causality, and truth rest on a
biblical worldview, even when those assumptions are often taken for granted
today.
Conclusion
Scientific methodology is a powerful and valuable tool when
used correctly. Operational science investigates repeatable,
observable processes in the present and produces highly reliable knowledge. Origins
science seeks to reconstruct unobserved past events and necessarily
involves interpretation shaped by assumptions.
Recognizing the difference between these two categories
helps clarify what science can legitimately demonstrate and where worldview
commitments influence conclusions. Science is a powerful confirmation of God
Word and helps us explain the world…when done correctly.
Article Appendix: Selected Scientists of the Past and
Present who believe(d) in the God of the Bible
Chronological List of Scientists (Birth Year Order)
- Johann
Gutenberg – Printing technology – 1400
- Nicolaus
Copernicus – Heliocentric astronomy – 1473
- Francis
Bacon – Scientific methodology – 1561
- Galileo
Galilei – Observational astronomy – 1564
- Johannes
Kepler – Planetary motion – 1571
- William
Harvey – Circulatory system – 1578
- René
Descartes – Analytical geometry – 1596
- Blaise
Pascal – Probability and fluids – 1623
- Robert
Boyle – Chemistry, gas laws – 1627
- John
Ray – Taxonomy – 1627
- Christiaan
Huygens – Wave optics – 1629
- Robert
Hooke – Cell biology – 1635
- Nicolas
Steno – Stratigraphy – 1638
- Isaac
Newton – Classical physics, fluids, gravitation, laws of motion, and
calculus – 1643
- Herman
Boerhaave – Clinical medicine – 1668
- Carolus
Linnaeus – Biological classification – 1707
- Leonhard
Euler – Mathematical analysis – 1707
- Antoine
Lavoisier – Modern chemistry – 1743
- Alessandro
Volta – Electricity – 1745
- Pierre-Simon
Laplace – Celestial mechanics – 1749
- André-Marie
Ampère – Electrodynamics – 1775
- Georg
Ohm – Electrical resistance – 1789
- Michael
Faraday – Electromagnetism – 1791
- Samuel
Morse – Telegraphy – 1791
- Matthew
Maury – Ocean currents – 1806
- Gregor
Mendel – Genetics – 1822
- Louis
Pasteur – Germ theory – 1822
- Jean-Henri
Fabre – Insect behavior – 1823
- William
Thomson (Lord Kelvin) – Thermodynamics – 1824
- Joseph
Lister – Antiseptic surgery – 1827
- James
Clerk Maxwell – Electromagnetic theory – 1831
- Josiah
Willard Gibbs – Thermodynamics and physical chemistry (Gibbs Free
Energy) – 1839
- George
Washington Carver – Crop science – 1864
- Max
Planck – Quantum theory – 1858
- Arthur
Eddington – Stellar physics – 1882
- Arthur
Compton – X-ray physics – 1892
- Werner
Heisenberg – Quantum mechanics – 1901
- John
Eccles – Neurophysiology – 1903
- Ernst
Chain – Penicillin – 1906
- Wernher
von Braun – Spaceflight – 1912
- Henry
Morris – Flood geology – 1918
- Benoît
Mandelbrot – Fractal geometry – 1924
- Raymond
Damadian – Inventor of the MRI – 1936
- Russell
Humphreys – Nuclear physics – 1940
- Walter
Bradley – Thermodynamics – 1943
- John
Sanford – Genetics – 1947
- Stuart
Burgess – Design engineering – 1953
- Danny
Faulkner – Observational astronomy – 1955
- James
Tour – Nanotechnology – 1959
- Bodie
Hodge – Advanced materials engineering – 1974
- Jason
Lisle – Cosmology – 1974
□
Bodie Hodge, Ken
Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various
churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers
in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding
news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight
Council.
Bodie
launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal
website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken
on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and
universities. He is married with four children.
Mr. Hodge earned a
Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a
Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and
running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic
materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a
grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar,
Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.
His love of science
was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one
year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and
scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over
25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.
