© 1996 The Brotherhood of Man Library
Whereas there is no such thing as an official definition of the scientific method, nor what constitutes the logic and goals of science, there are some things that are understood by a majority of professional scientists.
The core of the scientific method is simply to explore the available data, formulate a hypothesis to explain as much as of the data as possible, then do experiments to test the hypothesis. This tends to be a never-ending sequence of modifying the hypothesis to accommodate new data, then repeat.
The method has brought enormous progress over the last few hundred years. Until recently it included the assumption that an untestable hypothesis has no value.
The modern media business has now changed the rules by granting the untestable hypothesis an enormous market value. Unfortunately, this relatively new phenomenon has grossly distorted both the layman’s and the scientist’s view of what constitutes science. Here we stick to the old fashioned values.
There are two practical but unwritten working rules for both the bench scientist and the theoretician. The ‘laws’ of science must be the same for all observers wherever, whenever, and whoever they are. This rule has the corollary that the ‘laws’ are immutable, God does not play dice with his rules. Second, every observable phenomenon must have a natural explanation.
It is the interpretation of these rules that causes so much misunderstanding both between scientists and religionists, and individuals within those groups.
To illustrate this point let’s pretend we could bring Newton and Einstein together to discuss the interpretation of their concepts about gravity and effects upon the wobbles of the planet, Mercury as it circles the sun. Einstein points out that his concept complies better with the measurements than does Newton’s and Newton responds that that is because God and his angels are channeling energy into the solar system in a way that slightly disturbs the orbits of Mercury. Einstein replies that God does not mess round with the laws of physics. Newton responds, “How do you know.”
End of debate. Why? Firstly because the ‘laws’ are not the same for both observers, and secondly because Newton has introduced ‘non-natural’ interference by God to explain what his theory does not.
Newton and Einstein were, of course, great men, far too great to behave in this manner and, in any case, both firmly believed in God as First Cause, and his non-interference with his own laws.
The major cause of misunderstanding about these unwritten rules is the assumption that God’s non-interference implies no God.
Was it Laplace who said to Napoleon that he had no need for that hypothesis, meaning there was no necessity to postulate a God in order that ‘natural’ law should be operative?
Although the two unwritten rules do not require there to be a God in order to institute the ‘laws’ in the first place, neither do those rules state or imply anything about the reality of God, nor what he may or may not have done.
The confusion comes in when both scientists and religionists confound the issue by assuming non-interference by God is the same thing as no God at all.
It is indeed unfortunate that, in the modern world, so many have confused having a scientific attitude with a necessity to deny the existence of God. In reality, empirical science has no business saying anything about God, for the existence of God is, as yet, an untestable hypothesis.
It does not require very strenuous thought to realize that there is no conflict at all in believing in a personal God, and at the same time being a bench scientist investigating natural phenomena using natural law that assumes God is not interfering but does not deny that God exists.
In thinking about a scientist’s view of cosmology, one of the rules to be taken into account is the law of conservation of energy (mass is now included as a form of energy) that used to be taught in high school science as, “Energy can never be created or destroyed.” The empirical support for this law, tested thoroughly for more than a century, is overwhelming.
A consequence of the conservation of energy law is that since no more energy-matter is being produced (or can be produced), the unavoidable increase in entropy will ultimately ensure that an expanding universe must run down (entropy is a measure of disorder).
A steady state, finite universe having no new energy input is so unstable it cannot exist and the other alternative is that our universe will implode keeping the conservation law intact at least until the point where the laws of physics fail.
In thinking about how a universe might begin or end, the orthodox scientist operates within the restrictions of the unwritten rules. Philosophically speaking, it is imperative that scientists should continue to operate within the rules at least until they have exhausted every possible ‘natural’ explanation for observable phenomena—at which point their only valid ‘scientific’ conclusion should be that no ‘natural’ explanation has been found.
There is a foolish line of reasoning in existence among some scientists (and many lay people) that appears to arise from the irrational denial of a “First-Cause,” which is, of course, an untestable hypothesis and therefore inadmissible as being ‘scientific.’ This irrational line of reasoning is illustrated by arguments such as that since life exists, it must be inevitable that it will generate itself spontaneously. The same line of thinking is applied by the godless scientist to the existence of the universe—since it is here, then it must be possible for it to create itself—an obviously untestable hypothesis resting upon a previous untestable hypothesis and therefore worthless, scientifically speaking.
Leaving out the fact that The Urantia Book insists upon a God who is First Cause in whom and through whom all things exist, there is yet another reason for scientific cosmology and the cosmology of the book being at variance.
The Urantia Book tells us that energy flow into the grand and master universes is continuous and controlled. In our universe of Nebadon, there may be few signs that this is so at the present stage of universe development. However at some future date it will attain life and light and the book states, “This era of light and life, inaugurated by the Teacher Sons at the conclusion of their planetary mission, continues indefinitely on the inhabited worlds…these worlds settled in light and life are destined to go on throughout the eternal ages of all future time.” (UB 55:0.2-3)
That would appear to indicate that the suns of light and life planets will be need to be prevented from running down, becoming red giants, and swallowing their inhabited planets in the process. Finally, for the Grand Universe, when all seven superuniverses are at life and light, the whole system settles down to last throughout eternity in perfected energy equilibrium. In such a state, it seems the stars must shine unchanged, forever.
Science will have discovered that energy flow in the universes is controlled long before the Grand Universe attains light and life, but for the present, at least on Urantia, to stick with their own tried and tested rules, true scientists should be satisfied with what can be observed and limit their speculation to what can be empirically demonstrated. If they want to talk about God, then they need to take off their lab. coat and put on their theological or philosophical hats.
The circuitizing and channelizing of energy is supervised by the five hundred thousand living and intelligent energy manipulators scattered throughout Satania. Through the action of such physical controllers the supervising power centers are in complete and perfect control of a majoritu of the basic energies of space, including the emanations of highly heated orbs and the dark energy-charged spheres. This group of living entities can mobilize, transform, transmute, manipulate, and transmit nearly all of the physical energies of organized space. (UB 41:2.4)