God has written His plan for man in The Holy Bible, and this plan draws to its conclusion as proven by daily news reports.

What is science, a scientist? Without complicated definitions, science is an attempt to derive truth, and a scientist seeks that truth. Certain principles must be followed in accepting scientific truth. Statistical analysis and rigid experimentation are commonly employed to demonstrate the validity of scientific truth.

What is scientific method? Several explanations exist, but generally the scientific method follows certain steps:
• A scientist observes his/ her surroundings and formulates questions. (What causes...? Why does...? and so forth.)
• From questions he/ she cannot answer, a hypothesis is formed. [Hypothesis = a possible explanation, based on the scientist's limited knowledge and observations, which will serve as a starting point for future experimentation.]
• The hypothesis is tested through experiments, following well-known scientific procedures and principles.
• Data (results) are collected from the experiments. The data are subjected to rigid statistical analysis to determine if they are significant (if they occur as a result of the experimental conditions) or not significant (if they occur by chance alone and are unrelated to the experiment).
• If the data (results) are statistically significant, conclusions are drawn. The data and conclusions are published in an appropriate scientific journal (not merely a newspaper article or Internet report), after being "peer-reviewed" (critiqued by a panel of experts). The data and conclusions are, then, available to scientists around the world to analyze and re-test, seeking to reveal and correct any error.

Can every question be studied by the scientific method? No, in my opinion. Certain questions cannot be tested through experimentation. I take two examples— Darwinian evolution and "climate change." Part of the scientific method involves reproducing conditions thought to be necessary for the change and subjecting two populations— a test population and a control population— to the same conditions. Scientists cannot create two earths for millions or billions of years— a test earth subjected to various conditions under study (high levels of man-made carbon dioxide production, for example) and a control earth not subjected to these conditions.

What alternative is used, when the scientific method cannot be applied? Scientists may make observations and estimate why changes occurred. Or, they make computer models and estimate the future from limited data of the past. From the earliest days of the computer, there has existed a well-known acronym, GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). A computer analyzes only data presented to it and cannot distinguish true data from false data. If incomplete, misleading, or falsified data are presented to a computer, only incomplete, misleading, or false conclusions result. In climate change studies, temperature readings are often estimated (expanding urban heat island effects, biased researchers' assumptions, other) and are available for only a short time period (since the late nineteenth century). Such data are suspect because researchers intentionally or unintentionally may introduce erroneous data, and the computer model is false. Example: John is watched Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. On these days, he went to lunch sharply at noon. What would a computer analyze John's behavior to predict his behavior on Thursday? Go to lunch at noon, of course. But, John may feel ill or have a conflicting appointment, and he may not go to lunch at that time regardless of the computer model.

Are there motives other than a search for truth? Research is a multi-billion dollar enterprise funded by business and government grants. Researchers have much at stake to provide conclusions which please their benefactors. A researcher's tenure, promotions, future grant funding, and reputation among peers are on the line. If he/ she raises doubts about man-made climate change or Darwinian evolution, for example, his/ her career may fade into oblivion. The pressure is always to promote issues such as these. I do not wish to impugn any scientist's motives. However, could at least some researchers be biased to promote "climate change" because of hatred of capitalism (hate of industry, as a threat to the environment)? Or, could at least some researchers be biased to promote Darwinian evolution because of a desire to make Creator God irrelevant? When results from scientific analysis are weak or sketchy, look for ulterior motives.

Is science ever "settled?" Politicians and news reporters may assure us that "the science of ... is settled." No scientist would ever describe any topic as "settled." True scientists— men and women who seek truth— should always be willing to question and re-study or re-test any topic's conclusions, even if brought by such giants of science as John Newton or Albert Einstein. A topic thought to be "settled" may be in error and may need to be corrected.

What if there is a conflict between man's knowledge and God's knowledge? Read news articles about "science" with care. The Word of God is eternal and inerrant. The word of man is temporary and always subject to error and need for revision. Paul warned (1 Timothy 6:20-21a): Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith.... Secular humanists and others worship at the altar of science, with scientists elevated to the status of gods. Scientists are fallible, and their views and motives must be examined carefully.