In this chapter we briefly considered several philosophies of science, all of which supported our conclusion that there is no scientific magisterium.[1] We also saw that no philosophy of origins science has yet been promulgated, which has led to widespread confusion regarding the distinction between empirical and origins science (the latter a type of applied science).
As important as this is, a full background to origins issues must also consider the broad historical context in which the Christian and secular humanist accounts are based. We turn to this in the next chapter.
References
Berthault, G. (2000, October 1). Experiments in Stratification. Retrieved December 14, 2024, from icr.org/article/473/
CMI. (1993). Moon-dust argument no longer useful. Retrieved June 21, 2025 from creation.com/moon-dust-argument-no-longer-useful
CMI. (2024, May 27). Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Retrieved May 25, 2024, from creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington D.C: The National Academies Press.
Dawkins, R. (2006, October 23). Why there almost certainly is no god. Retrieved from richarddawkins.net/2006/10/why-there-almost-certainly-is-no-god/
Feynman, R. (2023, December 9). What is Science? (R. Leighton, Ed.) Retrieved from feynman.com/science/what-is-science/
Feynman, R. (1974). Cargo Cult Science: Some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself. Caltech’s 1974 commencement address. Retrieved December 9, 2023, from calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
Gould, S. J. (1994). Evolution as fact and theory. In S. J. Gould, Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History (pp. 253–262). New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Gould, S. J. (1997, March). Nonoverlapping Magisteria: Science and religion are not in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domains. Natural History, 106(2), pp. 19–20.
Huxley, J. (1942). Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Koonin, E. V. (2009). The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? Trends in Genetics, 25(11), 473–475.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (50th Anniversary edn.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Leiter, B., & Weisberg, M. (2012, October 3). Do You Only Have a Brain? On Thomas Nagel: A philosopher’s broadside against Darwinism and materialism is mostly an instrument of mischief. The Nation. Retrieved December 9, 2023, from thenation.com/article/archive/do-you-only-have-brain-thomas-nagel/
Lewontin, R. C. (1997, January 9). Billions and Billions of Demons. The New York Review. Retrieved January 22, 2024, from nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/
McElreath, R. (2020). Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan (Second Edition). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Musgrave, A., & Pigden, C. (2023). Imre Lakatos. (E. N. Zalta, Ed.) Retrieved December 13, 2023, from plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/lakatos/ National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington: The National Academies Press.
Overton, W. (1982). McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed., 529 F. Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark. 1982). Retrieved May 25, 2024, from law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/529/1255/2354824/
Penston, J. (2010). stats.con—How We’ve Been Fooled by Statistics-Based Research in Medicine. London: The London Press.
Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge Classics.
Sabbagh, U. (2017, April 25). Science Has Always Been Inseparable from Politics: Scientific research doesn’t take place in a vacuum; it can only happen with society’s blessing. Retrieved December 11, 2023, from blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/science-has-always-been-inseparable-from-politics/
Shearer, A., Jackson, C., Ahmad, T., & Paredes, I. J. (2020, October 8). Yes, Science is Political: Scientists need to acknowledge that fact—and to act on it in these most dire of times. Retrieved December 10, 2023, from www.scientificamerican.com/article/yes-science-is-political/
Taran, S., Adhikari, H. K., & Fan, E. (2021). Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper. Intensive Care Medicine, 47, 1054–1056. doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z
[1] As Protestant Christians, we might say that the Bible is our magisterium, and the science literature comprises our Deuterocanon (second canon). The latter is helpful, useful, and valuable—but not infallible.