Michael Ruse defined science as whatever is accepted by the scientific community. He specified five essential characteristics of science [Meyer, 2009]:

1. It is guided by natural law.
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
3. It is testable against the empirical world.
4. Its conclusions are tentative, that is, not necessarily the final word.
5. It is falsifiable.

It is significant that Ruse said “natural law” twice. Science can be succinctly described as the study of nature. The supernatural is simply out of scope. Scientists are not necessarily opposed to God. In fact, many of them believe that He exists. It’s just that scientists try to determine whatever they can about the universe without invoking the supernatural. That’s all.

So then, how do scientists explain how people acquire consciousness? I can think of one possible theory: God breathes consciousness into each human at some point during their development. However, to the best of my knowledge, no reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal has ever published an article proposing this theory. And I don’t know of any other theory of consciousness that has ever been generally accepted by the scientific community. But since God is excluded from the realm of science, scientists must be satisfied to say, “We haven’t figured it out yet, but someday we will.”

Scientists have a (metaphorical) book akin to God’s book of life. However, instead of the names of saved souls, this book of science contains scientific theories that have been generally accepted by the scientific community. In order for a scientific theory to be entered in the book of science, it is necessary that there is sufficient (in the eyes of scientists) repeatable experimental evidence supporting the theory. If a theory is only speculative, no matter how reasonable or believable it may be, without any experiments providing observational data as evidence that the theory is correct, the theory is excluded from the book of science.

---

Contact me

---