Science and the Study of the Past

 How good science is at studying the past is a central point to the discussion of origins. One of the primary assumptions made by evolutionists is that the past can be studied and understood as easily as the present functioning of the universe can. They seem to think that the same degree of certainty can be obtained about the present functioning of the universe and its past. They do this by ignoring the fact that while we can see how the universe operates today, we cannot observe the past. This means that studying the past requires a lot of philosophical assumptions to be applied when interpreting evidence.

When we are studying the operating principles of the universe in the present, we can focus on specific observations and experiments in the present to see what the results are. However, we cannot actually see the past. Even when observing a distant object in space we cannot observe what could be seen before we looked through the telescope. As a result, we cannot actually test the past, because everything we see we observe in the present. If more than one theory can produce what we currently see in the universe, you cannot distinguish between them scientifically, except by eliminating a possibility by showing that it could not have happened.

What about forensics, you may ask? Yes, forensics is dealing with the past, but it is also not perfect. It is actually a good example of how science can go wrong when dealing with the past. In forensics, the forensic scientist on the case looks at the evidence and tries to construct a theory about what happened. Sometimes that theory is wrong because there is another factor for which there is no evidence. In fact, this is one of the reasons why the longer a case lingers the less likely it is to be solved. That is because evidence tends to degrade with time. It is also interesting to note, that forensics is in part about finding intelligent involvement in a past event, however, evolutionists exclude intelligent involvement as a starting assumption.

This is a key problem when trying to study history scientifically, that is you have to make assumptions about the past. A key assumption made by institutionalized science is absolute naturalism. This assumption eliminates the possibility of any intelligent involvement in the origin and subsequent history of the Earth and the universe. It excludes any divine involvement and therefore it excludes history as described in the Bible before any evidence is even looked at. You see the Bible describes two major supernatural acts of God in Earth’s history, Creation, and the Genesis Flood. If you try to determine the history of the Earth, based on the assumption that only natural processes were involved, you have to assume that these two events never occurred. Consequently, if these events actually did occur as described in the Bible and you tried dating the earth based on naturalistic presuppositions, you will inevitably derive an age for the earth that is much older than it really is. This is because both of these events would have thrown off the dating methods that are used.

A prime example of this is the age of the Earth. Institutionalized science commonly gives an age for the earth of 4.5 billion years. This figure assumes that the earth formed naturalistically by collapsing out of a cloud of dust and gas, however, few people realize that the paper also states that if it did not form that way it could be any age younger than 4.5 billion years. By the way, while not specifically stated in the paper 6,000 years is less than 4.5 billion years. This of course is just one of many examples, but it makes the point quite well.

The problem with trying to scientifically study history is that we do not have access to the past and so we have to make assumptions. Consequently, any theory about the history of the earth or the universe or anything else in it requires making assumptions that can never be tested. As a result, these theories are only as good as the assumptions behind them.

So, while it is possible to apply scientific methodology to past events, it is limited by the fact that we can only observe what exists in the present. Because we cannot observe past events, we need to rely on the records and other evidence about the past that we can study in the present. One of the problems that result from this, is the fact that it is always possible to add extra hypothetical events to a model to explain away problems with the original concept. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for this because there are other clues, but it is far too easy for such just-so stories to be invented to patch a theory about the past. However far too often it is extremely difficult and even impossible to test these stories. It is a major reason why science is limited when studying the past.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Archaeology People Dig It

Archaeology is defined as the scientific study of past human culture and behavior based on the remains, ruins and artifacts left behind. Some times there are conflicts between archaeology and geology because some times geological features can be confused for ruins and artifacts and vise versa.

Archaeology has the benefit of allowing the studying of history apart from historical records because there are some things you can’t just learn about from historical records, such as art, physical characteristics, and architectural. Things can be discovered about history not found in written historical records since historical records only contain what is considered important and much of every day life is not considered important enough to be recorded.

It allows the discovery of additional written records and confirming the existence of civilizations only written about by other civilizations. The most famous example of this is the discovery of Troy. Discovering civilizations not yet known and discovering things about groups that left no written records.

Artifacts are not preserved because they are lost as it decays over time and is damaged by natural disasters. Artifacts are frequently destroyed by war and the accidental destruction by reuse of land.  They have also been lost do to the carelessness of both non- scientists and scientists because archaeologists have not always been a careful as they should be. Sadly artifacts have been deliberately destroyed by both scientists and non- scientists. Being human scientists are not always honest, while this is not necessarily a big problem in that most archaeologists do not deliberately destroy artifacts but it is still occasionally a source of artifact loss. An example of non-scientists deliberately destroying artifacts is the fact that Moslems have a history destroying religions artifacts in countries they conquer. The looting of archaeological site is a major problem in some case. The further you look back in time the bigger this problem of the loss of archaeological artifacts becomes.

Governments often hinder archaeological research by blocking excavation and investigation other than by approved archaeologists so as to control access to potential digs. They also some times block the excavation and investigation of sites they don’t like. This includes the fencing off of a possible Mount Sinai site in Saudi Arabia. They further control evidence by demanding that artifacts discovered in their boarders be turned over to their officials. The reason given is to prevent the looting of National Treasures but it allows Governments to hide evidence that goes against their official view of history while allowing Governments to control access to the artifacts they have.

Artifacts are not self interpreting they need to be interpreted by way of a theoretical system. The accuracy of the interpretation is dependent on the accuracy of the theoretical system. Artifacts and ruins are easily dismissed if they do not fit the theoretical system being used because there are just too many different ways artifacts be interrelated. This is particularly true when sites are poorly preserved which can cause interpretation mistakes since the evidence that makes the difference can easily be lost. The discovered of sites by armatures can easily be dismissed since the claim can be they did not know what they were doing or that they messed up the site. Furthermore the theoretical systems used are based on philosophical assumptions.

Since archaeology is an historical science it is greatly influenced by philosophical assumptions. For example a purely naturalistic theoretical system requires assuming that any supernatural claims in history are mythological. The point is that the Philosophical Assumptions behind any claim needs to be understood.

A Description of Archaeology

Archaeology is the scientific study of past human culture and behavior from the remains, ruins and artifacts left behind. Some times archaeology and geology can clash because some times ruins and artifacts can be confused for geological features and vise versa.

Archaeology has a number of benefit of studying history apart from historical records because there are some things you can’t just learn about from historical records, such as art, physical characteristics, and architectural. Discovering things about history not found in written historical records since historical records only contain what is considered important and much of every day life is not considered important enough to be recorded. Discovering additional written records and confirming the existence of civilizations only written about by other civilizations. The most famous example of this is the discovery of Troy. Discovering civilizations not yet known and discovering things about groups that left no written records.

Archaeology’s biggest problem is the fact that many are not preserved because it is lost as it decays over time and is damaged by natural disasters. Artifacts are frequently destroyed by war and the accidental destruction by reuse of land.  They are also lost do to the carelessness of both non- scientists and scientists because archaeologists have not always been a careful as they should be. Sadly artifacts have been deliberately destroyed by both scientists and non- scientists. Being human scientists are not always honest, while this is not necessarily a big problem in that most archaeologists do not deliberately destroy artifacts but it is still occasionally a source of artifact loss. An example of non-scientists deliberately destroying artifacts is the fact that Moslems have a history destroying religions artifacts in countries they conquer. The looting of archaeological site is a major problem in some case. The further you look back in time the bigger this problem of the loss of archaeological artifacts becomes.

Government have often hindered archaeological research by blocking excavation and investigation other than by approved archaeologists so as to control access to potential digs. They have blocked the excavation and investigation of sites they don’t like. This includes the fencing off of a possible Mount Sinai site in Saudi Arabia. They further control evidence by demanding that artifacts discovered in their boarders be turned over to their officials. The reason given is to prevent the looting of National Treasures but it allows Governments to hide evidence that goes against their official view of history while allowing Governments to control access to the artifacts they have.

Artifacts do not interpreting themselves but are interpreted by way of a theoretical system. The accuracy of the interpretation is dependent on the accuracy of the theoretical system. Artifacts and ruins are easily dismissed if they do not fit the theoretical system being used because there are just too many different ways artifacts be interrelated. This is particularly true when sites are poorly preserved which can cause interpretation mistakes since the evidence that makes the difference can easily be lost. The discovered of sites by armatures can easily be dismissed since the claim can be they did not know what they were doing or that they messed up the site. Furthermore the theoretical systems used are based on philosophical assumptions.

Since archaeology is an historical science it is greatly influenced by philosophical assumptions. For example a purely naturalistic theoretical system requires assuming that any supernatural claims in history are mythological. The point is that the Philosophical Assumptions behind any claim needs to be understood.