The Fallacies of Scientific Arguments

What Pastor Kim is going to give in this article is a lot of good arguments that you can use to debunk people who try to use science on you. Now we do believe in science, because we believe in observation, testing and experimenting things; and if you do that, you are going to get closer to the Bible and closer to God, not toward evolution.

But you are going to deal with atheists who like to use science as if it’s the infallible God for every answer out there. Their scientific arguments have a lot of fallacy.

Beware of Science Falsely So-called

The first thing to understand is this – the Bible warns you about this:

1 Timothy 6:20 “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”

We are not against science, but what we are against is science falsely so-called. The opponents will use science for their arguments in a false way. Notice the Bible carefully words ‘so-called’. It’s just a so-called, falsely. In other words that this is incorrect.

The Bible already gave you two clues on how you can argue and demolish their scientific arguments. The key is ‘so-called’; it’s just word of mouth. It’s not really science. Another thing is ‘falsely’. They are using it incorrectly. These are two methods that the Lord already gave you.

The Importance of Wisdom

The third method is, we do believe in using wisdom. In case you didn’t know, philosophy means lover of wisdom. Therefore, we can use wisdom or philosophical methods where we can debunk the arguments.

Proverbs 4:5-7 “Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.”

It is important that we should seek and love wisdom. The Bible also warns about philosophy at the book of Colossians; when you look up philosophy at the book of Colossians, it has to do with a humanistic concept, not divine, God’s spirit-filled concept. If it follows the Bible, you should use wisdom that follows the Bible, not wisdom that follow’s man’s thinking.

Observations Can Never be Neutral

Let’s use these three methods to debunk the arguments of science.

The first thing concerning science, how you can debunk it is that, one of the fallacies within the scientific world is concerning about observation. What’s the definition? Let’s look at the basic thing about science, theory, and hypothesis. The basic of all these definitions, requires observation. That’s what’s required within science.

Here’s the problem with this argumentation: within the eyes of different people, how they observe things, it’s going to be different. Even though you are doing the observation, the experimentation, the problem is your observation could be in a different plane, different mindset.

For example, if I were to open up a radio box right here, I see all these wires like this. When I observe it, how do I see it? As I see it, all these wires are just all over. What is this? But then within a person who’s into electronics, he sees it as connections with each other, communicating something. Why? Because the mindset of the electronic person was already trained, already taught something else. Because he already has that mindset, when he sees it, he’s going to see it from his perspective.

That’s why it makes so much sense why evolutionists do not convert to creationism, because they’re majoring in their field and that’s their mindset, already built into that. Because of that, when they’re doing observations with certain experiments or certain evidences out there, they already have that mindset that’s already communicated to them when they observe.

In other words, there’s no such thing as an absolute neutral playing field within science. Professional scientists wouldn’t believe in that either, if they are really honest.

A good example is the earth. During the ancient Greek days, in their observation, they can use all the logical reasonings and experimentations where they can prove it’s flat. But to the scientist’ mind, when they look at the earth, they will see it was round, because they’re going to go from their mindset of their experiments of how it can prove curvature. But guess what? Today we got flat earthers and when they observe something within the earth, where they see it as curvature, they might see it as flat; where they see something where it might prove something round, they might see it as more evidence concerning flatness.

Therefore, there is no such thing as a completely neutral standpoint when interpreting scientific evidence. Your mindset has already been shaped by what you have been taught and what you believe, and that influences how you interpret what you observe.

This is why creationists often make this argument when debating evolutionists. It is a significant point, and it is what Ken Ham tried to highlight during his debate with Bill Nye. However, debates do not always work that way, and people often overlook the important point Ken Ham was trying to make.

You can present the same scientific evidence to two different people, yet they may interpret it very differently. A creationist may look at the evidence and see proof of intelligent design, concluding that something was created immediately as it was made. An evolutionist, on the other hand, may look at the same evidence and interpret it as the result of gradual development and relationships between different forms of life.

In other words, the way people interpret scientific observations can be influenced by their existing beliefs and assumptions.

Observations are Biased

The second point concerns the nature of observation. This is related to the first point, but there is an important difference. The first point concerns how a person’s mindset influences what he sees. The second point concerns how a person’s existing beliefs and theories influence how he interprets what he observes. In other words, it concerns bias.

Pastor Kim argues that human beings are naturally prone to bias and that it is impossible for a person to separate himself from all bias completely. Every human being has biases. According to Pastor Kim, anyone who claims to be entirely neutral is being dishonest. Even an atheist, if he is honest, should acknowledge that he has biases in his thinking. Therefore, when a person observes something, he is not approaching it without any preconceived ideas. He already has theories and beliefs in his mind, and these can influence what he observes and how he interprets the evidence gathered through experiments. If an observation appears to support his existing beliefs, he may be more inclined to use it to support his theory.

Pastor Kim explains that this issue is particularly interesting in the study of research methods. He argues that some professors and researchers become uncomfortable when their observations or experimental results conflict with their theories. Rather than abandoning their existing views, some may repeat their experiments because they are unwilling to accept results that contradict what they believe.

Pastor Kim raises several reasons why researchers might be reluctant to abandon an established theory. How much money has already been invested in the research? How much would changing the theory affect existing textbooks and the academic world? These are significant considerations because abandoning an established theory could have far-reaching consequences.

Furthermore, a person’s entire career may have been built around supporting a particular theory, such as evolution. What would happen if that person suddenly rejected the theory he had spent his life defending? How would his superiors respond? Would he be demoted, labelled a mad scientist, or dismissed as a pseudoscientist?

These are the kinds of pressures that, according to Pastor Kim, can influence how researchers approach evidence and respond to findings that challenge their established beliefs.

The Element of Faith in Observation

Let’s use scripture for these two things. The answers to these two are in the Scripture. It’s already answered for you. We believe in this. We believe in using observation, but we don’t deny the fact, that there is an element of faith here. That’s what these two are. Whether you believe it or not, it is an element of faith there, what you already believe, without actual proof, and without actual neutrality.

Hebrew 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

You take a substance, and you can observe and test. It is evidence that you take, but notice ‘of things not seen’. The Bible told you that there is a fallacy within observation already; that there is faith.

The Problem of Induction

The third point concerns the problem of induction. Induction involves making generalisations based on observations, whereas deduction draws conclusions from premises.

In deduction, if the premises are true and the reasoning is logically valid, the conclusion must also be true. Induction, however, cannot guarantee the same certainty because it relies on the cases that have been observed.

For example, someone might observe thousands of furry animals and conclude that all furry creatures have four feet. However, the platypus has fur but does not fit this generalisation. No matter how many examples are examined, they may not cover every possible case.

Pastor Kim argues that Christianity can use deductive reasoning to examine the existence of God. For example, with the law of thermodynamics. In his teachings, he presents four possibilities for the universe’s existence: it has always existed, it came from nothing, it is an illusion, or it was created by something supernatural beyond the natural world. He also suggests the term “designer” to describe the latter possibility.

Pastor Kim contrasts this with scientific theories, which often rely on induction and the best available explanation rather than absolute certainty. His central argument is that induction produces generalisations, while valid deduction leads to conclusions that necessarily follow from true premises.

The Problem of Falsification

Another issue Pastor Kim raises is falsification. In scientific research, scientists test theories and hypotheses to determine whether they can be proven false. Discovering that an established theory is wrong can lead to major breakthroughs and recognition. In this sense, falsifiability is an important principle of scientific testing.

Pastor Kim applies this principle to evolution, arguing that there are examples that deserve further scrutiny, including Nebraska Man and Lucy. He questions whether similarities in bone structure and human features are sufficient to establish that these specimens were ancestors of modern humans rather than distinct species that became extinct.

He argues that if even one piece of evidence disproves a claim, that claim cannot be considered true as stated, regardless of how many other observations appear to support it. He therefore questions why evolution is presented as established fact when, in his view, its fossil record, geology, DNA similarities, biological structures, mutations, and natural selection contain problems that have not been adequately addressed.

Pastor Kim also questions the interpretation of carbon-14 dating, arguing that environmental factors and evidence that he considers supportive of a young Earth should be examined alongside results used to support evolutionary timelines. He challenges scientists to apply falsification consistently rather than focusing only on evidence that supports their existing theories.

Scientivism

Another problem Pastor Kim identifies is scientivism—the belief that science has all the answers and that anything that cannot be explained scientifically must be rejected. He argues that this is a flawed way of thinking because not every question can be answered through science alone. This is a bad argument, he says.

If someone insists that science has all the answers, Pastor Kim asks: What about the possibility of something existing beyond the physical universe? If science concerns the natural workings of the physical universe, how can it provide every answer about something beyond that realm? To claim that nothing exists outside the physical universe is itself a belief that must be justified.

Someone might argue that observation and experimentation prove it. However, people also accept scientific findings that they have not personally observed or tested. For example, people rely on textbooks and reports about experiments conducted by others. Furthermore, conducting scientific experiments independently requires money, equipment, and resources. Government regulations and other restrictions may also limit what people can investigate for themselves.

Pastor Kim’s point is that claiming science has all the answers requires assumptions that cannot always be established through personal observation and experimentation alone. 

Conclusion

Pastor Kim argues that if scientific investigation continues far enough, it should ultimately point people toward God, heaven, and the realities beyond the physical universe. However, he believes that God has placed limits on what humanity can discover. These limitations do not prove that something is unscientific or unreal. Even today, there are things that people cannot directly observe or test through experiments, yet they accept them based on the available evidence and what they have been taught.

Pastor Kim asks why people cannot apply the same consideration to the existence of God. He argues that when we examine DNA, the complexity of biology, the natural world, the universe, astronomy, and geology, it is unreasonable, in his view, to believe that everything came about through billions of years of development from nothing without an intelligent Creator.

Rather than assuming that science has all the answers, he encourages people to consider what scientific evidence may reveal about God and acknowledge the limitations of human knowledge.