Does Science Discover Truth?

Some people argue that the assumptions behind science blind scientists to reality. By searching for naturalistic answers, scientists refuse to consider supernatural explanations. As a result (some would say), by definition, scientists are unable to "discover" facts that would support faith. They might go on to say that the entire educational establishment, hostile to faith, rejects and ridicules any attempt to bring faith into science, and even evidence that might support, for instance, a young age for the earth is ignored. This perception is strengthened by a number of scientists who are hostile to religion, and by a definition of science that specifically excludes the consideration of super-natural explanations.

On the other hand, the purpose of science is to uncover the mechanics of how things work-in specific. Ultimate answers like "God made it" does not add much to our understanding of blood clotting, for example (though it might enlarge our sense of awe). I think that part of the problem is that we have confused science with Truth, and think that if there is not a scientific answer, there is no answer to be found. Some scientists do hold that there is nothing but matter, and that everything that happens is only the interplay physical systems- but they are not speaking as scientists when they make these kinds of statements; they have become philosophers. Scientists can hold opinions about the nature of ultimate reality, just like theologians can hold opinions about the quantum mechanics- but in each case, they run the risk of arguing outside of their areas of expertise.

How God chooses to manifest in our lives, and how God interacts with the physical universe may not be discoverable, except through the eyes of faith. Seeking to validate our faith through science may be expecting too much of the discipline. This is not to say that faith is not grounded in the physical world, but that God's creation is so well made that it does not require "propping up" to function, and has no "holes in the fence" through which we can peek to see the hand of God at work.

Others suggest that there is no reality to discover. How we experience the world is created by consensus (or our preconceptions). If we had a different consensus, we would have different laws of physics. From this perspective, scientists document our shared habits of belief more than discover basic principles about the universe. Interestingly, this is a difficult charge to defend against, because we have little choice other than to act as if the world we find ourselves in is real (just try not paying your bills!). In any event, this is not a Christian objection to science, as Christians do believe that God (and not us) made the world.

All people bring their assumptions with them to any human endeavor. As well, reality is larger and more subtle than any one of us experience. All the same, I believe that something unusually powerful is indeed uncovered by scientists. What is being uncovered is nothing less than what God has done in the universe. Of course, this work is being done by people, with all sorts of motives, prejudices, agendas, and different levels of skill, experience, intellect... which is why we have the practice of peer review and reproducible experiments, and why controversial ideas take some time to be accepted.

As poor a system as this might be, I cannot imagine that making science a matter of popular opinion makes much sense either. It is not only Christians that have a bone to pick with science. Some Eastern religions question the very notion that there is a reality to discover. Certain groups deny that various historical events occurred; different religions have trouble with even fairly recent anthropology. Non-specialists have trouble with the math that underpins much of modern physics, and the chemistry & biology behind medicine. Given this, does it make sense to determine scientific fact by popular vote? Based their popularity, should we add astrology and numerology to our science curriculum?

Discontinuity or Progressive Change?
One of the things that is not always obvious when we read about new discoveries is that these new discoveries are most often refinements or extensions to explanations of the world around us. For example, recently a scientist has reported that he believes he has demonstrated that the speed of light is not constant. But this actually represents progress in understanding the universe- General Relativity would still be useful and accurate (Just as Newtonian physics is still used, though it has been superseded by General Relativity). So we may be "honing in" on the truth, rather than starting all over again. This matters because, if science is discovering random facts, and our theories veer from one explanation to another, it would be reasonable to assume that "anything is possible," and a theory that is proved wrong today could be proved right tomorrow. What seems more likely is that we do not discard what has been proved right so far, but discover deeper or more fundamental theories that account for more of what we see in the world.

In Summary:

"Science is not merely a collection of facts, concepts, and useful ideas about nature, or even the systematic investigation of nature, although both are common definitions of science. Science is a method of investigating nature--a way of knowing about nature--that discovers reliable knowledge about it."

http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/sciencemethod.html