true science vs false science

True science is not contrary to the word of God. Science has benefited mankind; through research, we have made vaccines, infection-fighting drugs, medical procedures, various technologies and so on. The list can go on forever. The point is, science is not the enemy, it is our ally. False science, like macro-evolution (molecules-to-man) and the big bang theory are the true enemies to scientific advancement. The Bible actually talks about science, it warns not to be swayed by pseudo-science (false science).

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.
1 Timothy 6:20.
So the Bible itself talks about science, and it demands that we avoid science falsely so called.

Science today is broken down into two categories: Operational science and historical science. Operational science is true, tangible science. It is the science that is observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Historical science is also called origins science. Creationism and evolution are both within this category.
Technically, historical science is not true science for two reasons :

1. It cannot be directly observable, testable, and repeatable. Nor can it be falsified. Nobody was there to observe the apparent first cells forming from non-living matter. Therefore, you can't prove it; meaning it's an opinion, not science. The creation account is the same way. There was, however, one that was there to witness creation, it was the Creator Himself (even though apparently God can't be included in science).

2. True science is unbiased. Historical science, on the other hand, begins with biased reasoning. No theory of origins can avoid using philosophical statements as a foundation. Evolution claims that there is ABSOLUTELY no God, which is extremely biased. Creationism is guilty of this as well, it claims that Genesis is the exact way it happened (which I agree with 100%). Neither accounts are truly scientific. Although I completely agree with the Genesis account, it is not scientific. It cannot be repeated (obviously), it cannot be directly observed (except by God), it cannot be tested, and it can't be proven false. Same goes for molecules-to-man evolution, we can't observe it, test it, repeat it or prove it wrong (I say the last one very loosely).

If both creationism and evolution are both unscientific, how can one be taught in public school while the other cannot?
Dr. Scott of the Kansas State University stated:
" Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".
That statement is illogical. If the data pointed to an intelligent designer (which it does), than it would have to be included in science, even if it wasn't naturalistic.
Another excuse Naturalists like to use is that allowing supernatural explanations into our understanding of the universe would cause us to stop looking for answers and just declare, "God wanted to do it that way."
This is also a false statement. Most of the founding fathers of science believed fully and completely in God and in the Genesis account. Did Newton say "God just wanted it to be that way"? No, he studied physics and discovered the three laws of motion. Did Mendel quit his research on Genetics because he felt like it didn't need studied because God made it that way? NO! They wanted to find out how God's creation worked.  

Yet another excuse Naturalists make is that there is no proof for creation. This is another false statement. Creationists and Naturalists both have the exact same evidence, but their interpretations are different because they start off by having two very different opinions. An example of this is the fossil record. A naturalist would say that it is evidence of evolution, a creationist would say it is evidence of a global flood. A naturalist would say the similarities in certain areas in the DNA of humans and apes are an example of evolution. Creationists would say it's evidence of a very intelligent creator. The list can go on and on.

I conclude with nine questions and answers that one may ask in a science class room or a debate:

1.  Do all scientists believe in naturalistic evolution?

      The answer is no. Most of the founding fathers of science believed in the Genesis account.

2. There are two contenders for the history of life on earth: some form of naturalism (evolution) or supernatural creation. Are there really any alternatives to some form of naturalistic evolution in science if science is restricted to naturalism?

Technically, no there wouldn't be. However, true science is supposed to be unbiased, and yet the statement that there was ABSOLUTELY no supernatural creation is biased, therefore it's unscientific.

3. Since evolution and creation are both based on religious beliefs, why should one be taught in public schools and not the other?

Students of Biology should be taught both. Since both deal with Historical Science, it should be stated that neither can be proven (because neither can be tested, observed, repeated or falsified).

4. Should there be a distinction between experimental (operational) science and historical science?

Absolutely! Operational science is "true science", because it uses the scientific method (Testable, Observable, Repeatable and Falsifiable). Historical science always begins with a philosophical statement, and can't be tested, observed, repeatable and falsifiable.

5. Since a naturalistic approach to science can only refer to materialistic explanations, how can           naturalists use logic if logic is not a material part of the universe?

***This is my favorite question in this section! I have a good answer too:

If science depends on naturalistic explanations alone, it must accept that our thoughts are simply the products of chemical reactions that evolved from random chance. How can you ultimately rely on randomness to evolve the correct way of thinking? If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
If Naturalists were right, logic would be illogical, therefore science would be non-existent. Knowledge would be chaos. There would be no truth, because nobody could scientifically discern truth.

6. it necessary for science to allow only naturalism?

It shouldn't. If the data points to a supernatural being, then logically that being exists. The founding fathers of science did not accept the answer "God just made it that way", whey wanted to see how God's creation works.

7. Would all scientific thought and advancement end if supernatural creation was accepted as a possible model for how the universe and life on earth began?

Nope. We could clearly study science (God commanded it in Genesis and in 1 Timothy). We would actually have a deeper understanding of science (the fear of God is the beginning of Knowledge).

8. Why is supernatural creation considered to be a "science stopper" and not a "science starter," considering that most of the founding fathers of science believed in the Bible and a supernatural creation event?

Science has become high jacked by an illogical theology. The founding fathers feared God and believed His words to be true, and they discovered how creation works. If they were on earth today, they would be infuriated at what science has become, an Atheistic doctrine.

9. If an all-knowing Creator God exists, wouldn't it be logical to say that He knows about the scientific laws He created? Why not use what He says as a foundation for scientific thinking?

This raises a good point, the Bible has many things in it that the founding fathers used to study science. Mendel and Linnaeus used the "after their kind" scriptures to study classification and genetics. Kepler used Jeremiah 31:3 as a reference to the moon controlling the tides.