History vs. Science?

History is hypothetically outside the realm of science, because science is based on observation and replication (experimentation).  I can’t observe Abraham Lincoln to see if he was the 16th president of the United States.  And I can’t replicate the universe’s beginning to see how it happened.

Science does, however, influence history . . . and history does influence science.

On the one hand, science gives theories of how the universe began, for example.  This is science presuming upon history.

On the other hand, history gives a ‘past’ that scientists work from.  No one goes into an experiment with no prior knowledge and no expectation of what will happen.  If I place a seed in a pot, for example, I don’t expect it will cause the world to blow up or that it will cause penguins to migrate to North America.  I have boundaries of expectation for the experiment.

So what should I base my decision on: history or science?

What evidence does each side give?

History gives us truth (events that really happened).  Science gives us experiments, observations, probability, and theory.

Before I decide which to trust, I have to ask myself . . . why is truth a part of history?

For anything to be true, it must have a beginning in a Being who is truth or able to create truth.  Otherwise, where would truth come from?  It can’t have come from chance, since chance would never allow for objective moral standards of any kind.  (The Christian God is Truth and is able to create Truth as He speaks.)  If anything in history is the truth (for example, if it’s true that I brushed my hair this morning), then I have to ask myself . . . where is that truth coming from?  Why is it that the past really happened?  In a chance universe, how can anything be reliable?  Why would the past stay the same?

Back to my decision: I can trust history (truth) or science (experiments, observations, probability, theory).

The first—truth—can only prove creation true.  How so?  It cannot prove creation is untrue by its own “chance universe” claim in no absolute truth . . . and, therefore, no truth.  Therefore, creation can be proved to ways: by truth or experiment/observations.  A chance universe, on the other hand,  can be proved only by experiments/observations.

The second–experiments/observations–is actually irrelevant.  How so?  If there is no absolute truth, nothing can ever be known for certainty out of an experiment.  There is no ability for trustworthy historical documentation.  How can I know what happened in an experiment when there is no reliability the outcome will be the same under the same circumstances (if there is no truth), and I can’t even rely on my memory of the experiment as an aid (if there is no truth)?

Perhaps when I plant a seed, the universe did explode and I don’t know it because the past is relative and without truth . . . perhaps penguins will migrate to North America if I plant another seed.  How can I know anything, if there is no premise of truth?  Logic cannot exist without truth.  History cannot exist without truth.  And even science itself is toast!

If I have no truth to hold onto, the only thing I can cling to is logic-less, irrational chance.  So how can anything be known?  But this is the very least scientific of all: the inability to know anything.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”  (Psalm 14:1b, ESV)

Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://gracestories.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/history-vs-science/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: