Three Kinds of Science

The word science is a very interesting one and often misused. In modern rhetoric the word science has at least three distinct meanings, however those three distinct meanings are often all rolled into one universal meaning by flawed reasoning.

The First Kind

The first meaning which we are all very familiar with is what we will call practical science or industrial science. This is the kind of science that is performed in the laboratory, and industrial institutions that make rockets, lasers, and nuclear bombs. It is also found in our colleges. It is the type of science that is interested in one thing and one thing only: Results! This kind of science is not interested in the origins of the universe are the moral implications of jellied gasoline. This kind of science is the science of the cookbook. It is looking for combinations of elements and forces that generate repeatable results. It is interested in toothpaste, dish washing soap's, night vision goggles, and medicines. This kind of science has an extremely myopic view of the world, is a cold and ruthless type of science. It looks only for one thing, the result. And I do not mean this in any its type of negative way, is simply a matter of fact.

This is the kind of science that gave us great advances in medicine and in technology. Forces and/or chemicals are both are combined in the results observed. If the results are useful, the formula for creating the results is saved. A discovery is made, and a new product is now on the shelf of mankind.

The Second Kind

The second kind of science is more abstract, it lives in the realms of theoretical mathematics, and philosophy. It is sort of a boundless type of science; it is not have any seriously established rules, as it is interested in the origins of rules. Epistemology is one of its venues. This kind of science is near and dear to many men's hearts as they sit around in coffee shops and discuss the meanings of life, or the origins of the universe, or Hegelian dialectic.

The Third Kind

The third kind of science is a very different kind of science it is an old monster that should have died back in the 1700s, yet its ugly head still roams through out the esteemed halls of our industrial education centers. It is the romantic notion that man - by his mere mind - can become more than he is, and can know all things by the mere use of his mind. This monster was born long ago but grew to maturity in the 1700s; he became an Idol of the intellectual man. This kind of science became man's own internal god. And many a man have bound down and sacrificed at this Idol of Science. This false god, was called enlightenment. And after the dark ages, he was a welcome messiah.

This is neither the time of the place to go into a long discussion as to how this false god of science was created. The topic at hand is the confusion of the three sciences into an unholy trinity. Each type has its place, each type is its own an interesting problem, I seek not to destroy any of them. Only to separate them from each other so they become distinct and separate.

Men raise their voices and passion and throw a fist in the air and declare "Science!" That was a rallying call of the Marxists, when asked how they would make life better. And that is the banner that is still raised today, as if it were an infallible god not unlike the mighty Apollo of the Greeks. Apollo was the great oracle by which all things could be known, he was the favored god to the emperors, philosophers and of warlords. This mighty Idol could predict the future, this is why he was so sought after. Now he has changed his name to Science. His loyal followers cry, "Have faith in Science, for he is a mighty god!"

Do not think I malign the first kind of science, the industrial and commercial are practical science. It is for this reason that I separated the three in orders talk about them properly. The first kind of science is not truly the function of philosophy and logic. I too am a fan of this type of science. What I speak against is the unholy trinity of science: Mixing the first kind with the latter two.

Modern speakers who proposed such ideas as evolution, and enlightenment use the word "science." But when they say this they wish to stand on the firm foundation of the first kind in order to earn credibility, run through the flowers and weeds of the second kind in order to establish openness and land firmly planted in the third kind of self-delusion. When we hear them speak they are promoting the third kind of science and using the first kind to dazzle us into believing that the third kind is supported by the first, while the second is only a means to connect the first in the third.

Evolution is promoted as a scientific theory, and it is. It is a scientific theory of the third kind of science. We'll call it 'Renaissance science' from the time when it was originally popularized.

Allow me to explain my point forther. Industrial science or practical science has a set of rigors which must be followed exactingly. The conclusion of any hypothesis put forth by a person must be testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, etc.. The theory of evolution is not testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, etc.. Therefore it cannot fit into the rigors of practical science. It must be removed from that realm and placed into philosophical science or 'Renaissance science.' It has no place in practical science whatsoever. However the great promoters of evolutionary theory wrap the three sciences together as if they were one to promote the theory of evolution.

Let us now see if evolution can stand the test of philosophical science. Philosophical science has rigors, logic, reason, be it deductive or inductive, and many other tools in its basket. It is unfortunate that many people confuse philosophical science (in its formal sense) with the imagination (in a casual sense). A theory and a fantasy are really not the same thing. A fantasy is any whim one might make up in their head without any reason whatsoever, and this is fine for the intrepid daydreamer, whereas philosophical science demands logical order. It is a far more flexible modality than is practical science. It is able to deal with the most extreme of situations. For instance, practical science does not accept the testimony of witnesses, whereas philosophy can easily accept the testimony of witnesses or even the merest of Muses. It is a tool that we can use to quickly destroy what is not sound or logical. In contrast, practical science only deals with strict reality, things we can see, hear, feel, test, taste or smell. We often use philosophical science to aid us in practical science. We might wonder what would happen if we make sodium metal with oxygen. While we are wondering we're not in the round of practical science but philosophical. Once we expose sodium metal to oxygen and want you to ignite and burn an extremely high temperature and brightness, we have then entered into the realm of practical science. So it is easy to see how these two can be confused. The reverse is also true. We may see sodium metal burning in the presence of oxygen and then wonder why this happens. The wondering of the "why" is the use of philosophical science, until practical science can take over.

Practical science by nature could never deal with such things as origins of the universe. We do not have universes that we can test and grow in order to understand how they come into being. We cannot take universes apart and see how they work. We do not have anything that is 'non-universe.' We would need a 'non-universe' or a standard by which to compare the universe to. This is a very important factor in our understanding of how things work. If the universe was expanding and we were also expanding on the atomic level, all of our observation would tell us that nothing is happening, even thought things were happening. This is because we do not know what is not the universe.

Nor can practical science deal with such things that are intangible such as the spiritual world. Practical science deals with the physical world and as such is not able to render the necessary tools to the realm of spirits. It is able to deal with things such as forces but only as they act on the physical world. Things such as gravity, which is a bit more intangible and could be likened to the spiritual world, start to cause problems (except for the fact that gravity has a direct effect on the physical by moving objects around that we can measure). When something is more spiritual, say the feeling of love from one person to another, will have no direct effect on the physical which can be measured by science. This is why these types of affairs are regulated to the second kind of science, philosophy. And this is exactly the reason why things such as origins of the universe must be understood as philosophical questions and not scientific ones. When evolutionists use the word 'science' they want you to think of practical science when they truly mean philosophical. Practical science carries with it the meaning "reality," when contrasted with philosophical science or philosophy which we understand as a belief, religion, or muse of men.

Posted by Michael Fowler in Creationism.
(This article comes from The Confessors website to whom we express gratitude)