The Limits Of Science

Embryonic_Stars_in_the_Rosette_NebulaAtheists don’t like to admit this, but science is limited. True science, that is. There’s a particular process known as the scientific method that leads to truth pronouncements, but only a limited body of truth.

Art, for instance is foreign to science. What can science tell a painter or musician or writer? Is there a way to measure who will or won’t have a particular artistic ability? Does science tell these creative people what notes go with which or what colors they need on their pallet?

Perhaps we need first to understand what specifically are the claims of science. Here’s the definition from the Oxford American Dictionary: “a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.” This “systematically organized body of knowledge” comes about by use of the scientific method which also has a strict definition:

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning (Wikipedia).

So if someone is exploring, say, the existence of a certain historical figure, such as Jesus of Nazareth, science can’t help because there’s no empirical or measurable evidence. Clearly, science can’t be a guarantor of historical truth.

Philosophical truth is another area in which science is pretty useless. Ask a why question and science has little choice but to shut up. Why are we here? Why is there suffering? Why do some people believe in God and others reject Him? What can science contribute to such explorations?

Of course science is also useless when it comes to ethics. We have no empirical way of measuring right or wrong, though we all agree that right and wrong exist. Science can’t tell you why we think this way and it can’t help us figure out what belongs in each category.

Or how about relational truth? Some people are drawn to each other. They have “chemistry,” but no one can tell you exactly what that means or how people achieve it. This relational chemistry exists between a man and wife, between friends, between team members. But when it comes to the latter, it’s not always there. Sometimes everything “clicks” and sometimes it doesn’t. What makes the difference? A certain leader, a peacemaker, someone whose unselfishness is an example to the others? No one can quantify what it is—it’s beyond the purview of science.

Then there’s the spiritual realm. Most atheists I’ve communicated with deny a spiritual realm because science can’t measure it—a shortsighted . . . or maybe, blind . . . pronouncement. Millions of people down through time have reported spiritual experiences. Atheists, however, consider these as delusions, fabrications, or brain function—none of which they can prove.

Rather, their trump card is that no one can produce scientific evidence to support the spiritual—as if science with its dependence upon empirical data can measure the supernatural.

What’s most intriguing to me is that atheists who cling so firmly to science most often embrace evolution as the explanation for humankind’s existence, and in fact of all life. Yet the very thing they use to counter the idea that the universe and all life has been created, is the very thing they can not verify scientifically.

Oh, sure you’ll hear a lot of science thrown around—light traveling through space for untold light years, rocks determined to be millions or billions of years old, fossils of a pre-man, and so on. But none of that is science.

Science is based on observation and questioning (how did man come to be?), followed by conjecture (he might have evolved from a lower life form), also known as a hypothesis. Then comes the real work: experimentation. The subject in question must undergo testing which yields empirical data, and the tests must be repeated to verify that the results weren’t simply coincidental. Clearly, no one can replicate evolution or its companion theory, the Big Bang. There are no experiments we can run to show how nothing exploded into life, how that life organized itself from a single cell to multiple cells, each more complex than the one before it.

In short, science is too limited to prove the theory of evolution, to disprove the existence of the supernatural, to explain morality, to determine answers to the great questions of purpose.

So why, I wonder, have we deified science as if it is the end all of every discipline? It is not.

Published in: on February 11, 2015 at 6:31 pm  Comments (6)  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,


  1. This is superb. Especially liked how you handled the intangibles of art, colors, all the nuances of creating which are obvious yet immeasurable.

    Are they enemies of science, ha.

    Always boils down to truth. Someone said long ago: Science is dangerous in the hands of unsanctified minds. He was onto something.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hmmm, thought I left a reply to your comment some time ago, ColorStorm. Thanks so much for contributing to this discussion. Yes, science can be dangerous to those who don’t understand that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. They use science to justify their rejection of God when, in fact, science is nothing but a tool by which we see the inner workings of the universe a little more clearly. It doesn’t pretend to speak to the unseen world, but those who have turned their backs on God use the limitations of science as proof that God doesn’t exist. It’s foolish. But that’s also in Scripture: The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.


      Liked by 1 person

      • It’s all good B


  2. Reblogged this on mkpang.


  3. Absolutely heart-soaring truth here, Becky. Thank you. The point you made about science failing to measure the supernatural was esp. thought provoking. In spite of all empirical and anecdotal evidence to the contrary, science must deny the supernatural because it is not the discipline through which the supernatural can be measured. It’s a circular existence similar to the naturalist who claims evolution is the only answer because no supernatural cause can be accepted. The truth is, why would we expect science with its inherent limitations to be able to measure or even acknowledge the supernatural?


  4. science must deny the supernatural because it is not the discipline through which the supernatural can be measured

    Exactly, Wayne. It’s one of those apples/oranges issues. Science is well-equipped to deal with the physical realm, but has zero capacity to speak meaningfully about spiritual or philosophical or ethical or artistic matters. It would be like trying to use a sledge hammer to make pancakes. It’s an awesome tool and very effective in its proper place, but in the kitchen, it would be a disaster.



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: