The Difference between operation science and origin science

Operation science

Operation science studies how things normally operate in the present. It examines things that happen over and over again in a regular and repeated way. Operation science seeks and finds answers that can be tested by repeating the experiment over and over. These answers are falsifiable if the cause does not always give the same effect. Its conclusions are such as to make us able to project what will happen if we repeat in the future the same experiments. In other words, it’s a rule in operation science that things are very regular and predictable: no changes; no surprises. So you can’t even suggest for operation science to accept the idea of something unpredictable happening, such as something coming from nothing all alone, or supernatural things like creation happening. Therefore, operation science always seeks natural or secondary causes for everything (see below.)

Origin science

Origin science is a different kind of science. it studies past singularities like creation, rather than present normalities. Origin science does not study how things are regularly and normally happening now, but it looks to how things began (thus the word origin.) So origin science studies things that only happened once and, by their nature, they won’t happen again, so they cannot be studied by operation science without assuming that they didn’t happen at all. For example, the creation of this universe will not happen again, as the Creator finished the work of creation on the sixth day of creation. So unless evolutionists assume that creation didn’t happen, they will not be able to study origins and apply the methods of operation science. As we can’t repeat the events that originally happened, so we clearly need an eyewitness of those events, or else all what origin science can reach is plausible but not definitive answers. But when we also have the witness of the only Eyewitness (who obviously is the Creator,) then we can reach objective and sure answers.

So origin science studies primary causes (see below.)

You have surely noticed that the basic problem in evolutionism is that it has taken the wrong approach: It has applied the principles of operation science to the study of origins, thus for example denying the fact of creation BEFORE disproving the creation with a scientific method.

When scientific principles were first being developed and thus we got the scientific method, well known scientists of those times (like Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler) made a clear distinction between primary and secondary causes. A primary cause is a first cause that explains singularities. A secondary cause is a natural cause and law that governs the way things normally operate. The huge error that ancient philosophers and myths did was to use supernatural or primary causes to explain natural phenomena like earthquakes and meteors. When we learned the truth about these phenomena, a huge error was made by scientists when they eliminated primary causes from consideration altogether and sought to explain everything in terms of natural causes. That’s the error behind the principle and assumptions of the evolutionists. But just as it was wrong to explain natural and ordinary events using primary causes, it is also a huge error to explain past singularities using natural causes. And this is the huge error of the evolutionists.


Add/read comments