When I started to write my book, I asked whether or not God exists. That was my first question. So many people claim that there is no physical evidence of His existence. So I decided to ask a straightforward question. Should we believe in science? Is science itself truthful? I readily admitted that most people will admit science is basically true. But I added a proviso–“to the limit of our knowledge.”
As the author, I invited the readers to take a journey of discovery with me in our search of different sciences for evidence of God’s existence. So we explored botany, zoology, anatomy, astronomy, chemistry, and physics and more to uncover a lot of evidence. It struck me that we covered enough science that I did not need to explore more sciences and belabor the point about how science provided so much evidence.
When one reads my book, it can be seen that I am very critical of scientists. One might think that I’m anti-science. While I definitely criticize false conclusions by scientists, that doesn’t mean I don’t have the highest regard for science and scientists. How can I be anti-science when all my evidence is scientific from various sciences? In my book, I point out that science changes over the years. What was true last year may be false this year. I gave examples.
In 1492, most people believed the earth was flat. Columbus sailed the ocean expecting to find the Orient but found America instead and thus proved the earth was round. This does not negate the fact that a scientist may have calculated the circumference of a round earth centuries before Columbus just as Columbus’ discovery of America does not negate the fact that the Vikings discovered America almost 500 years before Columbus did. Galileo shocked the learned people of his day with his discovery that the earth revolved around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth. In recent days, scientists discover more and more things that were false in the past. That is the nature of science. Science changes as knowledge grows.
I take issue with modern-day scientists who neglect to thoroughly investigate their scientific tests before reaching a thoughtful conclusion. Two reasons for this. One, I have a high expectation because I know they are capable of doing better work. Two, I believe the general public relies heavily on their expertise to make their daily decisions based on their statements about medicines to take, food to eat or drink, cars to drive, vaccines to take or whatever people do in life. One year they say coffee is bad for you, the next year they say it is good for you. One year they say wine is good for you, the next year they say red wine is good but not white wine. People feel jerked around with such contradictory statements.
Should we believe in science? Like most people, I have a high regard for science, but I believe in being careful about accepting science without careful thought. How do you feel?
If you have a comment or question, let me know at firstname.lastname@example.org. It would be nice to hear your views.