There is a significant amount of confusion regarding the applicability of the scientific method to physical questions, both in the general population and in the scientific community itself. One such issue is whether miracles violate principles established by science. This article argues that they do not and provides reasoning to support this conclusion.
Science has been around for a long time. Archimedes (287–212 B.C.) was the most famous scientist of the ancient world and perhaps the first person who could claim to be a professional physicist. Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler were contemporaries in the 16th and 17th centuries A.D. Galileo developed theories of generalized motion, while Kepler focused on orbital motion. Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1726) was considered the greatest physicist of all time until Einstein appeared.
However, the scientific method was not formalized until the early 18th century by Francis Bacon (1561–1626). He codified the process of using inductive logic applied to observations to formulate a (usually mathematical) model, and then creating a deductive logical argument to test that model. This technique rests on the assumption that the developed model is time-invariant—that is, its internal structure does not change with time.
For example, Newton’s Second Law of Motion, f = ma, does not change with time. The position, velocity, and acceleration of the objects it describes, as well as the forces applied to them and their masses, may all change with time, but the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration is time-invariant. This is necessary to run experiments that test the model’s validity. The notion that force equals mass times acceleration is unchanged over time.
This time-invariant principle is a fundamental characteristic of the scientific method. If the model were time-variant, running repeated experiments to test it would be impossible, since each experiment would effectively test a different model.
What does this imply about miracles? Miracles are events that do not follow the normal causal relationships defined by scientific models. They are interventions by God in the operation of the physical world, creating events that do not satisfy any time-invariant model.
An important assumption of scientific inquiry is that the physical universe is predictable. Scientific models are frequently formulated in terms of physical laws that specify how to predict future conditions given specific initial conditions. The unstated assumption of science is that the physical world operates according to such laws.
Given this, it is instructive to perform a thought experiment: what might happen if an experiment, by chance, observed phenomena associated with a miracle? Clarity requires some precision in pursuing this line of thought. A miracle, by definition, is not a repeatable event. An experiment that observed a miracle would produce data that did not conform to any physical model under test.
Sometimes, however, experiments fail due to faulty equipment or the loss of control over environmental conditions, introducing factors that invalidate assumptions. Experimentalists recognize failed experiments by comparing their results with those of related experiments. When the results do not conform to expectations, they assume an operational failure, declare the data outliers, and discard them. Consequently, if a miracle occurred during an experiment, it is almost certain that the experimentalists would repeat the test several times and ultimately declare the anomalous data outliers. This thought experiment illustrates why science cannot verify the existence or non-existence of miracles. The scope of science is to model phenomena possessing predictable characteristics. The claim that all physical phenomena are predictable has no evidential support, and it is difficult to conceive of an experimental regimen that could even test such an assertion.
Historically, modern science has achieved a great deal of success, and its results have enabled the development and use of powerful technologies that now dominate our lives. However, as a result of this success, the scientific community has evolved into a powerful social force. Scientists frequently make statements that address subjects outside the realm of their expertise. Dazzled by the power of technology, the general population accepts these statements uncritically. In doing so, scientists inculcate beliefs that can lead people further into error.
If science cannot answer the question of whether miracles exist, why do some scientists insist they do not? This is because many, if not most, scientists are Naturalists. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Naturalism “asserts that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural,’ and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit.’” In other words, Naturalism is at best Deist and more frequently Atheistic. Deism holds that the creator of the universe, after completing the task of crafting the mechanisms that implement it, stepped back and refrained from interfering with its evolution. Atheism holds that there is no God who created the universe. Instead, the universe is eternal and operates according to rules without an author.
Scientists who subscribe to Naturalism identify science with it. But this is a deception. Science does not assert any claim about the supernatural. It only deals with the material world, and only with phenomena that can be modeled by time-invariant models. It does not even require that all physical processes satisfy this property, it only maintains that if they do not, they are not proper subjects for scientific inquiry. It is important for Christians to keep in mind that scientists are sinful human beings like everyone else. They can be mistaken, and they can mislead others in order to achieve selfish ends. They are not supermen who should be listened to uncritically. On the contrary, in the spirit of scientific discourse, their statements should be critically examined and refuted when erroneous.