Is science a dictator?

According to Merriam-Webster, a dictator is “one holding complete autocratic control: a person with unlimited governmental power.” Another definition they list is “one ruling in an absolute and often oppressive way.”

The general idea is that someone makes decrees, and there’s really nothing you can do about it. At least not without potential great peril to your life.

How does this relate to the Christian worldview? Well, a good chunk of the general public is under the impression that science is all about determining the truth about the world we live in, whereas the Bible is just a religious text conveying various people’s thoughts on how to live, but shouldn’t be relied upon regarding matters of science. That’s a very common misconception, and it really taints how people view the Bible and often leads them to write it off as anything to be taken seriously.

They also tend to see science as being “black & white.” It is what it is. In essence, scientists go into a laboratory, do experiments, and come out saying something like, “We did all the tests and here are the results. It is what it is, whether we like it or not. This is not biased, we’re just reporting the truth.”

As a semi-humorous side note, I sometimes tell my audiences that I am funny. Then I say that I am telling them that because they would never figure that out on their own! 😂 In a somewhat similar vein, when someone tells you they are trustworthy, it may be because they really aren’t, and they are trying to convince you otherwise.

We’re asking if science is a dictator, making decrees that we have to live with whether we like it or not. Here’s why I say, “No.”

I say, “No” because science can’t be a dictator. It’s impossible. Why? To be a dictator, you have to make dictates! And guess what? I’ve said it many times— science doesn’t say anything! Nothing! Facts don’t speak for themselves. Guess who says things? Scientists! Scientists say things, but the facts they observe are silent. How do scientists determine what they will say after reviewing the facts from their observations? They absolutely MUST use what they already believe to come to some conclusion about the new facts they are considering. What they already believe is called their worldview or their “starting point” (sounds like a good name for a ministry!). You have to use what you already believe to evaluate anything new. Certainly, you might change your views and use those for future evaluations, but you are always using what you currently believe to pronounce your conclusions.

We’d also like to believe that personal preferences don’t come into play. That is, a scientist will make their determinations completely independent of what they believe or wish to be true. Sadly, that is not the case. The phrase, “Follow the science,” was extremely common when the COVID-19 pandemic first hit back in 2020. We were told the world’s leading experts had studied what was happening, and then we were given “marching orders.” If you dared to question or resist, life became much more uncomfortable for you. Not only because of the “experts” and those in governmental authority, but also from the general public, many of whom unquestioningly followed in lock-step and shamed (and sometimes physically threatened) all those who didn’t immediately, upon being told to jump, ask, “How high?” In light of this, it’s interesting to note an article headline from WebMD (one of the most prestigious medical sources):

Year of COVID: Everything We Thought We Knew Was Wrong

Wait, what happened to “follow the science”? I don’t want to go down that rabbit hole right now.

Regarding biases, consider the following quote from someone who was one of the world’s leading evolutionists, Steven J. Gould:

“But I would also reject any claim that personal preference, the root of aesthetic judgment, does not play a key role in science. True, the world is indifferent to our hopes – and fire burns whether we like it or not. But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.

It is a similar situation regarding what we teach in this country regarding origins. All of our public (tax-funded) schools and state universities stress exclusively we are all descended from ape-like creatures, starting about 6 million years ago. Suppose you disagree and share that you believe we were designed (even if you leave God out of it). In that case, you are instantly ostracized, ridiculed, and seen as being part of the ignorant religious people who are science-deniers and the actual cause of all the problems in the world today.

Here’s a very telling quote from Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen:

“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

Let that one sink in! I’ve previously mentioned a very worthwhile documentary entitled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” It’s not about disproving evolution. It’s not at all about promoting biblical creation or even intelligent design. It simply makes the point that if you dare question Darwinian evolution, you are in grave danger of losing your job, not getting grant money for research, not having your findings published, and a whole slew of other far less desirable consequences.

Here’s a quote from the scientist who (sarcastically) gave us the term, “The Big Bang,” Sir Frederick Hoyle. He was one of the world’s leading astronomers and mathematicians:

”Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn it down.”

As I’ve said before, science is amazing. Through it, we have developed some amazing, life-changing technologies. That kind of science deals with what is called “observational science.” It typically involves things done in a laboratory, where scientists can make direct observations, repeat their experiments, and have others do the same tests, getting the same results. That’s not what is being questioned in this article. The other type of science is called, “historical science,” and it deals with events that happened in the distant past—things which we did not observe happening. We are unable to reproduce them in a laboratory, and we also don’t know for sure what all the surrounding conditions were at that time. Examples of things that involve historical science would be events such as the origin of the universe and the origin of life. And as you all know, I completely disagree with the current secular narrative regarding those events and others. I believe the Bible’s account of those events is much better attested to than the secular narrative explanations, and our ministry has a myriad of resources going into great depth supporting the accuracy and trustworthiness of Scripture.

So, the next time you read something from a science magazine or watch a YouTube video containing scientific pronouncements, always think critically about what is being claimed and don’t be intimidated simply because “it’s science”!