Two Kinds of Science: Below we discuss two major subdivisions of scientific endeavors that are often confused. The concept developed below will help students and parents understand how science relates to various worldviews and how students can confidently and fully embrace science and when to they might want to carefully explore and question the underlying assumptions. Empirical (or operational) science involves: •
Repeatable observation and measurement followed by analysis, hypothesis building and testing. These activities can only be done in the present. •
Empirical science is responsible for developing all the laws of physics and chemistry and all of modern technology and medicine. •
Empirical science is completely external and independent of who or what we are or what our concept of the past might be. This is because empirical science in built on repeatable observation and measurements made by multiple observers. Historical (or forensic) science involves: •
Unobservable and unrepeatable events of the past. The distant past is neither observable nor repeatable so scientists must make multiple assumptions, inferences, extrapolations, and conjectures about what past events might lead to present observation. •
Trying to understand the distant past, scientists must make some assumptions about the origin conditions and about the continuity conditions that prevail over time. Then they must infer, extrapolate and conjecture what events through time might connect these assumptions to the known repeatable facts of empirical science observed in the present. •
Historical science tells us something about where we came from, who we are (or ‘should’ be), and where we might (or ‘should’) go from here. These are intensely interesting and often controversial issues. These issues involve worldviews and religious positions. These issues also guide the formulation of the assumptions in the item above and quite possibly involve circular logic. One Big fallacy: People, the media, and even scientists frequently point to the marvelous success of empirical science as proof that the assumptions, inferences, extrapolations, and conjecture involved in the historical sciences are equally sound, or true. This is a major fallacy! It is totally false! Empirical science depends only on repeatable observation, measurement, and testing. Empirical science does not depend on anyone’s concept, conjecture, extrapolation, opinion, theory, or model of the distant past. Empirical science is independent of historical science! Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves and maybe you too. Historical science must agree with the repeatable observational facts of the present, empirical science. But historical science must add to that some additional assumptions about origin and continuity conditions trough time plus some inference, extrapolation, and conjecture about how all these work together to result in the presently observed repeatable facts of empirical science. Historical science depends on many assumptions and conjecture that are not needed for empirical science at all. Note also that these assumptions and conjectures are easily influenced by worldviews. The end result is that empirical science is independent of historical science. But historical science is dependent on empirical science plus a lot of assumptions and conjecture as well. So the success of empirical science in no way suggests any validity of historical science. Remember this fallacy! Don’t be fooled! Point out the fallacy when it is committed by others. Illustrating These Relationships Let’s develop a picture of these relationships. We can start with a timeline. Then mark the present time with a vertical line and indicate a few points representing a few of the repeatable facts of empirical science observed in the present. Then we have a diagram like the following representing empirical science: Next we can mark off a point in the very distant past and some points to represent our origin assumptions. For example where did space, time, and matter come from? We will also need assumptions about continuity through time, the conservation laws of physics for example. Next we can fill in the time with the Big Bang history of the universe, the geologic column, and a branch of the evolutionary ‘tree of life’ to represent the current consensus thinking in the historical sciences. In this diagram we can see that the repeatable observations of empirical science are determined independent of any concept of the past. But also our theories of the historical sciences, cosmology, historical geology, and evolution, are dependent on many assumptions and conjectures as well as the facts of empirical science. What is not shown in the diagram is that many of the assumptions and conjecture arises from worldview convictions such a theism or atheism. All this makes historical science fairly unstable subject to changing assumptions, worldviews, or wholesale replacement in paradigm shifts. However, empirical science does not depend on anything about historical science or worldview issues; it depends only on repeatable observations in the present. Empirical science has a very much more firm foundation than historical science and is not much subject to being disproved or rejected in the future. Science based on assumptions guided by worldviews is unstable, much more subject to change. People who base their self‐identification on such science will likely have the ‘rug pulled from under them’ at some point leaving them doubting their own self‐worth. The entire community should be confident of empirical science and all the marvelous modern technology and medicine that results. But one should be very wary of confusing historical science with empirical science. Students should be taught to carefully observe the difference. Conclusion To well understand the relationship between various forms of faith and science, students need to recognize the difference between empirical science and historical science so they can freely embrace and utilize empirical science, and at the same time carefully study and appropriately question the assumptions, conjectures and conclusions of historical science. It is important for students to routinely ask questions like, “Why do you come to that conclusion?” or “why do you think that is true?” Empirical science will provide answers based on repeatable observations but the historical sciences will often present assertions supported primarily by authority claims, consensus claims and hand waving.