The Blog

Unfortunately, Darwinists have been successful in convincing the public that the only bad science is that which disagrees with Darwinism. In fact, the complete opposite is true. It is the Darwinists who are practicing the bad science because their science is built upon false philosophy.

Because of this, it is their secular religion of naturalism that leads them to blatantly ignore the empirical, detectable, and concrete scientific evidence for design.

What lessons can we learn from the bad science of Darwinists? The greatest lesson we can learn from the bad science of Darwinists: science is built upon philosophy. Indeed, science is a slave to philosophy.

Bad philosophy results in bad science, and good science leads to good philosophy.

There are some key principles we need to acknowledge for the preceding statements to be true.

1. Science cannot be done without philosophy.
   Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and therefore, cannot be the result of them. For example, scientists assume (by faith) that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately comprehend the world around us. That cannot be proven by science itself. You cannot prove the tools of science the laws of logic, Law of Causality, or the Principle of Uniformity by running some kind of experiment. You must assume those things to be true in order to even proceed with the experiment. So science is built on philosophy. This means, unfortunately, many so-called scientists are poor philosophers.
2. Philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact scientific conclusions.
   If a scientists assumes beforehand that only naturalistic causes are possible, then probably no amount of evidence will convince them that intelligence created the first one-celled amoeba or any other designed entity. When Darwinists presuppose that intelligent causes are impossible, then natural laws are the only solution. Likewise, if creationists rule out natural causes beforehand, then they also risk missing the right answer to their philosophical pursuits. But scientists who are open-minded to both natural and intelligent causes will be able to follow the evidence effectively.
3. Science does not really say anything—scientists do.
   Data is always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their personal presuppositions or unproven philosophical assumptions dictate their interpretation of the evidence, they do exactly what they accuse religious people of doing—they let their ideologies dictate their conclusions. When this is the case, their conclusions should be questioned because they may just be nothing more than philosophical assumptions passed off as scientific facts.

Personal Reflection:
Why is materialism not reasonable?