by Margaret Luevano
Science conflicts with my faith?
In my youth and up through my first years of teaching, I would periodically see an article with “support” for something within the secular worldview. Sometimes when I would see support for the evolutionary (macro evolution not micro evolution) worldview, my heart would sink. I would think, “What if Christianity isn’t true? What if I have believed the wrong thing all this time?”
When this happened, I would ask God for wisdom (James 1:5). Over and over again, the Lord answered my prayers.
The big breakthrough came when I started developing a deeper understanding about what science actually is and what it is not. I realized that there were some things science could not speak to because they were actually outside the realm of science.
Growing up, science was usually presented to me as if there were no boundaries, and it could supply answers to almost everything. Once I discovered many of the limitations, it helped me to think more critically and have a better understanding when confronted with ideas that had challenged my faith in the past.
Where do we start? What is our standard to measure against?
The definition of science of course!
Science: any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.1
Understanding the definition of science changed everything for me in my classroom. Science and the scientific method are wonderful tools when used in the proper way. No longer was I involved in endless back and forth debates, but I could challenge certain philosophies with the definition of science itself!
Now, anything I saw in a book, read in an article, or heard someone say, I could judge whether or not the statement was a scientific statement based on the definition itself!
What are some limitations of the scientific realm when we use the definition of science as our starting point?
As the definition says, to be within the scope of science, things must be:
- Part of the physical world
- Observable
- Testable through experimentation
So then some limitations would be:
- Things that are not physical: moral claims, value judgements, thoughts, emotions, things that are in the spiritual realm like God or angels, etc.
- Things that are not observable: universal negatives, things that are too small or too far away, abstract things. Because of the limitations of being a human, confined to one spot in the universe and not able to get a bird’s eye view of everything, there is an unavoidable bias to our observations.
- Things that we cannot test through experimentation such as the past, things that we cannot view directly such as the center of the earth, etc.
Let’s practice!
See if you can recognize what limitation applies to the statements given below.
Directions:
Read each statement or question and decide whether or not it is a scientific statement based on the definition of science. If it is not, explain which limitation or limitations best apply to the statement.
- There are no mermaids.
No! This is not a scientifically testable statement. Even though it seems like a ridiculous statement, the statement can’t be solved by science because it is a universal negative. Universal negatives (statements with words such as no, no one, nothing, never) cannot be OBSERVED because to do so, we would have to be everywhere at once.
- We are dissecting a worm instead of a cat since it is a lower animal and therefore morally ethical.
This is not a scientific claim as it is one asserting a statement of value (lower animal) and morals. Neither of these are physical or measurable from a scientific perspective. If a human makes a judgement call like this it must be based on a source other than science.
- A student walks into a room with a burning candle. He is asked to determine how long the candle has been burning.
With no prior knowledge, the student cannot scientifically answer this question. He cannot go back in time to observe the burning time nor can he recreate the experiment to test it because it already happened. There are also many variables that come into play here. He has to make assumptions to answer this question. He would need to assume the original size and shape of the candle. He would have to assume the material. What if part of the original shape or material had changed and burned before he walked into the room? Movement and temperature of air, amount of oxygen, changes in these factors and so many other factors could have affected the experiment.
These three examples show that some assertions cannot be considered a part of science from the outset.
There is another thing to keep in mind when thinking more deeply about the component of observation as a way to discover. Scientists must be careful about bias in their observations, and we must learn to recognize bias. Two examples from the past that demonstrate this are:
- Spontaneous generation: The hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from non living matter.2
- Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny: This theory taught that during its development, a fetus would trace out the evolutionary path followed by its species.3
Both theories demonstrate a natural bias in human observation. Through time, we have seen over and over how appearances may be deceiving.
Are there other ways of knowing things besides science?
Another way that we can know things is through historical evidence.
Many people don’t realize that when they say they believe something because of science, they are really believing it because of history. In other words, they are believing it because someone said it was true. There is nothing wrong with believing things through historical documentation, but we must understand that the rules for knowing something is true historically are different from the rules for understanding whether something is true scientifically. Eyewitness testimony is a very important factor in knowing whether something is historically true. If the eyewitness can be discredited, then the testimony can be considered false. There have been cases where scientific work was misrepresented for some type of personal gain. One such case was when Ching-Shih Chen was found guilty of “deviating from the accepted practices of image handling and figure generation and intentionally falsifying data” in 14 instances in eight papers.4
When a book explains an experiment done by Madame Curie, it is science to her but not to me, since I did not do the experiment. (It is history to me.) We often must put our trust in the person who did the experiment and in those who wrote about it.
After all that, are there any truly scientific statements?
- Molecules of water are made up of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen.
- Plants use a process called photosynthesis to make their own food.
- Adult humans have 206 bones.
All of these statements represent the physical world, are observable, and are testable through experimentation.
What Does the Bible Say?
Through all of this, the Lord has confirmed repeatedly to me that his word is true. He is the Creator! Over time, as I continued to see the jumps in reasoning as well as the assumptions behind many “scientific” claims, I stopped worrying about what people said!
I had put man’s claims above what God said. If I had REALLY believed what God said from the beginning, I could have been saved from all the worry!
“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things” (Romans 1:20–23).
The Lord is merciful and faithful to answer our prayers for wisdom! “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Proverbs 2:6).
What can we conclude?
I have often heard people say, “You believe by faith, but I believe by science.” To say this shows that the person speaking does not understand the assumptions behind their beliefs nor do they understand the limitations of science. Science cannot produce ultimate and final answers related to things outside of its scope.
As believers, we can have complete confidence in knowing the one who knows it all! The one who is faithful and true!
“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16-17).
Both a person who believes in God and a person who does not believe can look at evidence related to the world and draw conclusions. Both must ultimately trust or have faith in someone or something.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding” (Job 38:4).
References
1. “Science,” Encyclopedia Britannica, last updated December 5, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/science/science.
2. “Spontaneous generation,” Encyclopedia Britannica, last updated September 13, 2024, https://www.britannica.com/science/spontaneous-generation.
3. James Trefil, The Nature of Science: An A-Z Guide to the Laws and Principles Governing Our Universe, (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2003), 309.
4. Alison McCook, “Cancer researcher at the Ohio State University resigns following multiple misconduct findings,” Science, March 30, 2018, https://www.science.org/content/article/cancer-researcher-ohio-state-university-resigns-following-multiple-misconduct-findings.