Are Scientists infallible?
People are prone to accept without question a ‘scientific’ view, but are Scientists infallible?
Some adverts on TV have people in white lab coats to make it more credible.
What is worrying is that some, or perhaps many people, are willing to totally accept what is said.
I am not saying that we become anti science but I would like to see people have more of an open mind on things.
So I will say it again: Scientists are not infallible.
They can and do get things wrong!
To give just one example of how ‘Science’ changes it’s views:
In the mid and late part of the 20th century a scientist, Dr John Money had a theory that was accepted by virtually all other scientists.
The theory was, that the sex of a baby remained ‘fluid’ until about 2 years old, therefore a baby could be ‘programmed’ by it’s surroundings to be a boy, or a girl.
(This was relating to ‘Intersex’ babies – which have both male and female sexual organs).
This theory quashed other suggestions for many decades.
It is now thought that the sex of a baby is determined in the womb by a small part of the brain.[*1]
Scientists can declare something as fact, and then years later it is discovered to be false!
Over the years; the rock solid, scientific answers do change!
A new scientific idea comes along, and the old scientific idea is thrown out.
Remember, what a scientist says is not necessarily correct and true.
Even though they sound very convincing, the opinions of scientists do change.
Let’s hold tightly onto what is written in the Bible, which cannot be wrong, (but we may interpret it incorrectly), and let’s hold lightly onto what the scientists tell us, because in a few decades they may be proved wrong!
Jesus said:
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
Matthew 5:18
[*1] thanks to the Horizon Programme BBC2 “The Boy Who Turned Into a Girl” 31/07/03
Scientist image: thanks to Serif RESOURCE CD.
5 Comments
I doubt they would believe that. People are capable of believing all kinds of things and I suspect they have something in their heads that justifies only giving “lip service.”
I totally agree with you when you say “but ultimately one should be careful about how far one goes in the other direction.” if you have got the ‘Fundamentalist’ type of Christianity in mind (where the words ‘severe’ ‘judgemental’ ‘legalistic’ and ‘joyless’ may describe them).
On the other hand I would disagree – if someone didn’t WHOLEHEARTEDLY embrace the teachings of Jesus and commit themselves to Him then they would be at best just be showing lip service and at worst would actually be a fraud.
It seems unfortunately that that is the case. Although me and my housemates might giggle when an advert proclaims the products was developed WITH SCIENCE!!! the fact is many people will take that as confirmation.
Similarly news stories often take extreme bits of preliminary research and sensationalise them, then people get confused when a contradictory article is published the next day.
So care should be taken to understand how science works, but ultimately one should be careful about how far one goes in the other direction.
Thanks Adam for your comment.
I am not against science – it is a wonderful tool to discover things, and I guess scientists know their fallibility, but I’m not so sure the general public are so aware of the fallibility side of it – hence my post.
My unwritten assumption is that a number of people see Christians as ‘blindly accepting’ the Bible. For me that is the ‘faith’ bit in something we believe to be true.
The post was emphasizing what I have observed, and feel is not recognised, that there are people who accept the statements of science without questioning it – a ‘blindly accepting’ it through ‘faith’ if you like.
I hope I have fully understood your comment.
But both scientists and religious-types are examining an allegedly unchanging source – reality and the Bible respectively – and then making potentially fallible observations about it.
Thus to compare the source of one with the interpretation with the other is to make a false comparison. The source of both remains fairly consistent and the interpretations of both can be wrong.
As such to dismiss one as fallible whilst accepting another is ultimately unfounded, at least on this line of reasoning.