What Is Science?

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.