Science Has Never Spoken One Single Word

In our day and age, it seems that science alone carries the authoritative gavel for making judgments about knowledge, reality and ethics.  When worldviews collide - especially theistic and atheistic ones - all eyes look to this judicial chair to decide the matter.  Both parties wait for the verdict.  What is Science going to say?

And why wouldn't we want to know what it has to say?  Science is speaking so clearly today that atheist authors are not at all reluctant to quote its heralding voice: "Science says," "According to science," "Science provides," "Thanks to science," "Science has discovered," and "Science has proved to us..." With every citation it seems that the Christian's creed, "God has said..." takes more of a back seat in our world.  After all, we have heard science say there is no proof for the existence of God.

What is the Christian response to this?  What do we say when confronted with what science says?  The answer is simple.  Science has never spoken one single word.  When we hear something like, "Science tells us so and so..." We say, "No it doesn't.  Science can't talk."  When people use the word science this way, either in discourse or in writing, they commit at least two logical fallacies.  In order for honest communication to take place, these must be pointed out.

First, the fallacy of ambiguity.  Attributing all kinds of powers to the abstract idea "science" (which, in reality has no causal powers to make, speak, or give us anything), misrepresents the truth by obscuring it or clouding it.  It keeps the hearer in a position of unclarity, thus stunting his/her ability to respond promptly, clearly, and effectively.  This cloud is quickly removed by pressing the issue - "Did science tell you that?  Or, did a scientist tell you that?"  While it is quite difficult to test the faithfulness, credibility and accuracy of science, it is an easier and clearer task to test a particular scientist of the same.  This leads us to our next fallacy.

Second, the fallacy of dogmatism by appealing to the illegitimate and incorrigible "authority" of science.  By appealing to "science" the hearer is supposed to accept the predication based on the ambiguous authority of science.  Now, many will say that we are to accept the predication based on the evidence; but this is hardly ever communicated.  Rather, I find that many who appeal to science have never really conducted the method themselves, but are simply trusting in what someone else (science, philosopher, or friend) has written or said.

The simple fact is, this fallacy assumes a link between authority and truth that does not exist.

We must also understand that the abuse of this fallacy does not mean that the argument in question is necessarily wrong.  The argument simply remains unproven; but not disproven.

For a better understanding of the different types of fallacies that are commonly employed, I highly recommend McDurmon's book called Biblical Logic: In Theory and Practice.