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 the 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.

 

Is Science Secular?

 Is Science Secular?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 16, 2025 (Donate)

Many people today insist that science can only be done by people who have a secular worldview—or at least by those who are willing to leave their religious views at the door as they enter the science lab. Several popular atheists and evolutionists have contended that people who reject the big bang and the evolution of living things are so backward that they cannot even be involved in developing new technologies.[1]

But is this really the case? Or are these opponents of a biblical worldview simply making assertions that cannot be supported with facts and substantial arguments, having an incorrect understanding of true science?

A friend of the ministry was  challenged by the comment that science can only be done through a purely secular, evolutionary framework. Such statements are blatantly absurd and are a type of arbitrary fallacy called an “ignorant conjecture.” In other words, these people simply do not know the past, nor are they familiar with what science really is. 

Image from Presentation Library

Examples of Scientists Operating from a Christian Worldview

If science is a strictly secular endeavor without any need for a biblical worldview, then why were most fields of science developed by Bible-believing Christians? For example, consider Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James Joule, Joseph Lister, and James Clerk Maxwell. Were these “greats” of science not doing science? Francis Bacon developed the scientific method, and he was a young-earth creationist and devout Christian.

Even in modern times, the inventor of the MRI scanning machine, Dr. Raymond Damadian, is a Christian working with Christian principles. The founder of catastrophic plate tectonics, Dr. John Baumgardner, is also a devout Christian. And those who recently founded the scientific field of baraminology are also Christians. Also, I (Bodie Hodge) developed a new method for production of submicron titanium diboride for the materials science and ceramics industry. 

Professor Stuart Burgess developed a new mechanism for the two-billion-dollar European (ESA) satellite Envisat. Dr. John Sanford developed the gene gun. And let’s not forget Werner von Braun, the young-earth Christian who was the founder of rocket science and led the US to the moon. These are but a few examples of people who held to a biblical worldview and were quite capable as scientists and inventors of new technologies.

The Foundation for Science Is Biblical Christianity

Furthermore, science comes out of a Christian worldview. Only the God described in the Bible can account for a logical and orderly universe. God upholds the universe in a particular way, such that we can study it by observational and repeatable experimentation (see Genesis 8:22). Because God upholds the universe in a consistent manner, we have a valid reason to expect that we can study the world we live in and describe the laws that God uses to sustain the universe (Colossians 1:17).

In the secular view, where all matter originated by chance from nothing, there is no ultimate cause or reason for anything that happens, and explanations are constantly changing, so there is no basis for science. Though many non-Christians do science, like inventing new technologies or improving medical science, they are doing it in a manner that is inconsistent with their professed worldview. On what basis should we expect a universe that came from nothing and for no reason to act in a predictable and consistent manner? When non-Christians do real science by observable and repeatable experimentation, they are actually assuming a biblical worldview, even if they do not realize it.

It makes sense why “science” in the US is losing out to other nations since our science education system now limits science in the classroom exclusively to the religion of secular humanism (and its subtle variations).

It Is Not “Science vs. Religion”

So, the debate is not “science versus religion.” It is really “religion versus religion.” Sadly, science is caught up in the middle.

The battle is between the religion of secular humanism (with its variant forms like agnosticism, atheism, and the like), which is usually called secularism or humanism for short, and Christianity. They both have religious documents (e.g., the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III for humanists, and the Bible for Christians); both are recognized religions by the Supreme Court;[2] and both receive the same 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. Both have different views of origins.

Humanism has astronomical evolution (big bang), geological evolution (millions of years of slow gradual changes), chemical evolution (life came from non-life) and biological evolution (original, single-celled life evolved into all life forms we have today over billions of years) in its view of origins. In other words, evolution (as a whole) is a tenet of the dogma of the religion of humanism in the same way as biblical creation (as a whole, with six-day Creation, the Fall, global Flood, and the Tower of Babel) is a tenet of the dogma of Christianity. It is a battle between two different religions.

In recent times, the state and federal governments kicked Christianity out of the classroom, thinking they kicked religion out; but instead, they just replaced Christianity with a godless religion of humanism. This was done as an attack designed by humanists.

An Evolutionary Worldview Equals Science?

There is a misconception that this evolutionary subset of humanism is science. Science means knowledge and scientific methodology that is based on the scientific method (observable and repeatable experimentation). However, evolution (whether chemical, biological, astronomical, or geological) is far from scientific. Consider the following facts:

1. No one has been able to observe or repeat the making of life from non-life (matter giving rise to life or chemical evolution).
2. No one has been able to observe or repeat the changing of a single-celled life-form like an amoeba into a cow or goat over billions of years (biological evolution).
3. No one has been able to observe or repeat the big bang (astronomical evolution).
4. No one has observed millions of years of time progressing in geological layers (geological evolution).

The reason some people are confused about the religion of humanism—and specifically its subset of evolution—as being science is a bait-and-switch fallacy. Let me explain. One of the key components of humanism is naturalism. Basically, it assumes a priori there is nothing supernatural and no God. In other words, nature (i.e., matter) is all that exists in their religion (only the physical world).

As a clarifying note, Christians also believe in the natural realm; but unlike the naturalist or humanist, we believe in the supernatural realm, too (i.e., the spiritual, abstract, conceptual, and immaterial realm). Logic, truth, integrity, concepts, thought, God, etc., are not material and have no mass. So those holding to naturalism as a worldview must reject logic, truth, and all immaterial concepts if they wish to be consistent since these are not material or physical parts of nature.

This is very important because naturalism or natural science has been added as one of the dictionary definitions of science. For example, it was not found in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary, but it was added in one form in the 1913 edition. And, interestingly, they removed the definition that “the science of God must be perfect” in the 1913 edition.

So, although many appeal to observable and repeatable science through methodology to understand how the universe operates, another definition has been added to muddle this.[3] Science is now defined as “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.”[4]

For example, evolutionists have continued to popularize Darwin’s scientific observation of the changes in beaks of Galapagos finches as proof for the evolution of one animal kind into another. This is a great example of the bait-and-switch fallacy where scientists present real scientific evidence (the difference in finch beaks) but stretch the truth to say it gives validity to the mythology of microbes to man evolution (the “switch” part of the fallacy). This trick leads many to believe that evolution is real science. The only real science in this example is the observation of the difference in finch beaks.

People are baited with this good methodology of observational science (again developed by a Christian named Francis Bacon), and then they are told that evolution is science while subtly appealing to another added definition: that of “natural science” or “naturalism.”

This is like saying another definition of science is “Nazism.” Then Nazis could say they are “scientists” and get into a classroom! This is what has happened with humanism. The religion of humanism (with its founding principle of naturalism) has been disguised as science by adding another definition to the word science. But it is not the good science we think of that makes computers, space shuttles, and cars. It is a religion. To call evolution science is a bait-and-switch tactic.

Science and processes that supposedly take millions of years

Many processes that evolutionists profess takes millions of years do not. Using science in the present, we observe that processes that we have often been indoctrinated to believe requires millions of years really don’t. Consider this list: 

Evidence	Time to form (observed)	Scientific evidence for millions of years
Diamonds (vapor deposition)	A few days[5]	No
Diamonds (pressure and temperature method)	3-4 days[6]	No
Diamonds (from loved ones and pets ashes)	Three months[7]	No
Coal	Months[8]	No
Oil from Sewage	Days[9]	No
Oil from Animal waste	Days[10]	No
Oil from Brown Coal	2-5 Days[11]	No
Oil from Algae	30 minutes[12] - 60 minutes[13]	No
Petrified Wood (heat and chemical method)	Days[14]	No
Petrified Wood (chemical method)	Hours[15]	No
Petrified Wood (natural elements)	Less than 360 years[16]	No
Opals	Weeks[17]	No
Gemstones (volcanic origin)	Upon eruption[18]	No
Gemstones (lab origins, synthetic)	Days[19] with Flame Fusion, Melt Process, Solution Process	No
Fossils	Less than 24 hours[20]	No
Stalactites	Days[21], less than 100 years[22]	No
Stalagmites	In one summer[23]	No
Rock	Less than 150 years, Bell encased in rock[24] Less than 125 years, Tawawera Items[25] Less than 50 years, Petrified Hat[26] 3 months, Yorkshire Bears[27] Hours, Concrete (observed)	No
Rock layers (Catastrophes)	Hours, Mt. St. Helens[28]	No
Rock layer lamina (lab; Air + Water)	Almost immediately[29]	No
Canyons	Days, Canyon Lake Gorge[30] Days, Little Grand Canyon[31] Six days, Burlingame Canyon[32] Georgia’s Little Grand Canyon[33]	No

 

So, Is Science Strictly Secular?

No. In summary, science can never be strictly secular for these reasons:

1. Science is based on observable and repeatable experimentation that only makes sense in a biblical worldview where God’s power keeps the laws of nature consistent. In other words, science proceeds from a biblical worldview.
2. Secular humanism, with its subset of evolution, is in reality a religion and not science.
3. Many of the greatest scientists were Bible-believing Christians whose biblical worldview motivated their scientific studies, showing that a strictly secular view is not necessary for performing science.

Image from Presentation Library

Where Humanism Leads

Christians will continue to conduct scientific inquiry and invent things, processes, and science fields as we always have. If the US and other places neglect our accomplishments and inventions and continue to push the religion of humanism on unsuspecting kids in the classroom (usually unbeknownst to most) by limiting its definition of science to the humanistic worldview, then my humble suggestion is that they will continue down the same road humanism leads. That is, people who are consistent in their naturalistic worldview shouldn’t care about true science or the world, since nothing ultimately matters in that worldview.

 

---

[1] As an example of this dismissive attitude, Eugenie Scott (formerly) of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a leading religious humanist, says, “Like other pseudosciences, ‘creation science’ seeks support and adherents by claiming the mantle of science.” http://ncse.com/rncse/23/1/my-favorite-pseudoscience.

[2] US Supreme Court, Torcaso v. Watkins.

[3] There is also the issue of operational science versus historical science. For more see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science.

[4] Merriam-Webster Online, s.v. “science,” accessed March 8, 2013, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science.

[5] Greg Hunter and Andrew Paparella, “Lab-Made Diamonds Just Like Natural Ones,” September 9, 2015, ABC News Internet Ventures, produced for Good Morning America, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=124787.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Rae Ellen Bichell, “From Ashes To Ashes To Diamonds: A Way To Treasure The Dead,” NPR, January 19, 2014, http://www.npr.org/2014/01/19/263128098/swiss-company-compresses-cremation-ashes-into-diamonds.

[8] R. Hayatsu, R.L. McBeth, R.G. Scott, R.E. Botto, R.E. Winans, Organic Geochemistry, vol. 6 (1984), p. 463–471.

[9] Australian Stock Exchange Release, Environmental Solutions International Ltd, Osborne Park, Western Australia, Oct. 25, 1996. Media Statement, Minister for Water Resources, Western Australia, October 25, 1996.

[10] Dr. Andrew Snelling, “The Origin of Oil,” Answers 2, no. 1, p. 74–77, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Christopher Helman, Green Oil: Scientists Turn Algae Into Petroleum In 30 Minutes, Forbes.com, 12/23/2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/12/23/green-oil-scientists-turn-algae-into-petroleum-in-30-minutes/.

[13] B. Thomas, “One-Hour Oil Production,” ICR, January 13, 2014, https://www.icr.org/article/7874/.

[14] Editors, “Instant Petrified Wood,” Physics.org, January 25, 2005, http://phys.org/news/2005-01-petrified-wood-days.html.

[15] Hamilton Hicks, Sodium silicate composition, United States Patent Number 4,612,050, September 16,1986, http://www.google.com/patents/US4612050.

[16] Andrew Snelling, “ ‘Instant’ Petrified Wood,” Creation, vol. 17, no. 4, September 1995, p. 38-40, online September 1, 1995, https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/instant-petrified-wood/.

[17] Dr. Andrew Snelling, “Creating Opals,” Creation ex nihilo 17, no. 1, Dec. 1994: 14–17.

[18] Editors, Mount St. Helens Gift Shop Website, http://www.mt-st-helens.com/obsidianite.html, downloaded April 7, 2014; Editors, “How Gemstones Are Formed,” GemSelect, accessed August 18, 2015, http://www.gemselect.com/other-info/gemstone-formation.php.

[19] Synthetic Ruby http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Synthetic-Ruby.html.

[20] Ben Coxworth, Lab-made fossils cram 1000s of years into 24 hours, New Atlas, July 25, 2018, https://newatlas.com/lab-made-fossils/55619/.

[21] Marilyn Taylor, Descent, Arizona Highways, January, 1993, p. 11.

[22] Emil Silvestru, The Cave Book, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2008, p. 46.

[23] Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge, A Flood of Evidence, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2016, p. 125.

[24] Bell-ieve It: Rapid Rock Formation Rings True, Creation, vol. 20, no. 2, March 1998: 6, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/bell-ieve-it-rapid-rock-formation-rings-true/.

[25] Renton Maclachlan, “Tarawera’s Night of Terror,” Creation, vol. 18, no. 1, December 1995: 16–19, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/taraweras-night-of-terror/.

[26] John Mackay, “Fossil Bolts and Fossil Hats,” Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 8, Nov., 1986, p. 10.

[27] M. White, “The Amazing Stone Bears of Yorkshire,” Answers in Genesis, June 1, 2002, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v24/n3/stone-bears.

[28] John Morris and Steve Austin, Footprints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2003.

[29] Guy Berthault, Experiments on Lamination of Sediments, Creation, Vol. 3, No. 1, April, 1998, pp. 25-29, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/experiments-on-lamination-of-sediments/. 

[30] Michael P. Lamb and Mark A. Fonstad, “Rapid Formation of a Modern Bedrock Canyon by a Single Flood Event, Nature Geoscience, June 20, 2010, p. 4, DOI: 10.1038/NGEO894.

[31] John Morris and Steven A. Austin, Footprints in Ash, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2003, p. 70-75.

[32] John Morris, “A Canyon in Six Days,” September 1, 2002, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/natural-features/a-canyon-in-six-days/.

[33] Rebecca Gibson, “Canyon Creation,” September, 1, 2000, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/natural-features/canyon-creation/.