Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!

Abstract
The phrase “Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!” highlights the crucial
distinction between science as a method and the human element involved in
interpreting scientific data. This detailed exploration examines the role of science
as a systematic method for understanding natural phenomena and emphasizes that
science does not convey meaning or conclusions—scientists do. The paper
discusses how scientific interpretations are influenced by the personal biases,
worldviews, and theoretical frameworks of scientists. Historical and contemporary
case studies illustrate how scientists' perspectives shape the understanding of
scientific findings, from Isaac Newton's laws of motion to modern debates on
climate change and the origin of life.

The exploration further delves into the philosophical implications of this

distinction, contrasting naturalistic and theistic viewpoints on science. It addresses
the limitations of science in addressing metaphysical and ethical questions,
highlighting the interplay between scientific inquiry and philosophical or
theological perspectives. The paper also considers the impact of cognitive biases,
cultural influences, and institutional pressures on scientific interpretations.

In conclusion, the paper argues that recognizing the human element in scientific
interpretation is essential for a balanced understanding of science's role. While
science provides valuable insights into the natural world, it is not equipped to
address questions of purpose, meaning, or moral values, which often fall within the
realms of philosophy and religion. The dialogue between science and faith is
presented as a complementary approach to exploring both empirical evidence and
existential questions.

Introduction
The Nature of Science Science is often perceived as an objective, impartial pursuit
of truth. It involves systematic methods of investigation, including observation,
experimentation, and analysis, to understand the natural world. However, science
itself is a method, not an independent entity with opinions or conclusions. The
phrase “Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!” emphasizes this distinction:
science is a tool, and it is the scientists who interpret and communicate its findings.

Origins of the Phrase The phrase is widely attributed to Frank Turek, a Christian
apologist, who uses it to argue that scientific conclusions are influenced by the

Page 1 of 11
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!
worldview and biases of the scientists involved. This notion challenges the
assumption that science alone can address all existential or philosophical questions,
particularly those that intersect with religious beliefs.

Chapter 1: The Nature of Science and its Limitations

Defining Science as a Methodology Science is a systematic approach to acquiring
knowledge through empirical evidence. It relies on observation, hypothesis testing,
experimentation, and analysis. The scientific method involves forming hypotheses,
conducting experiments to test these hypotheses, and analyzing the results to draw
conclusions. This method is designed to be repeatable and verifiable, ensuring that
findings can be independently confirmed.

Science operates within specific parameters. It deals primarily with empirical

phenomena, which can be observed, measured, and tested. This scope includes
natural laws and the physical universe but excludes metaphysical or supernatural
entities that cannot be empirically tested.

What Science Can and Cannot Address While science excels in explaining the
mechanisms and workings of the natural world, it has inherent limitations. Science
is adept at answering "how" questions—how processes occur, how systems
function, etc. However, it often falls short in addressing "why" questions,
particularly those related to purpose, meaning, or moral values.

For instance, science can explain the biological processes involved in the human
digestive system but cannot provide an intrinsic moral framework for why people
should act ethically or find purpose in life. Such questions often fall into the realms
of philosophy or theology rather than empirical science.

Chapter 2: The Role of Scientists in Interpretation

Science as Interpretation, Not Revelation Science is not a passive collection of
facts but an active process of interpretation. Scientists observe phenomena, collect
data, and develop theories to explain their findings. However, these interpretations
are influenced by the scientists’ perspectives, biases, and assumptions.

For example, two scientists may study the same set of data and arrive at different
conclusions based on their theoretical frameworks or personal biases. This

Page 2 of 11
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!
subjectivity highlights that science is not a purely objective endeavor but one that
involves human judgment and interpretation.

Paradigms in Science: Thomas Kuhn’s Insight Thomas Kuhn’s concept of

“paradigm shifts” in science illustrates how scientific understanding evolves.
According to Kuhn, scientific progress occurs not in a linear fashion but through
revolutionary changes in the prevailing frameworks or paradigms. When new
evidence challenges existing theories, a shift in the scientific consensus may occur.

A historical example is the transition from the geocentric model (Earth-centered

universe) to the heliocentric model (Sun-centered universe). This shift, driven by
new observational evidence, exemplifies how scientific theories can change based
on reinterpretations of data within new paradigms.

Chapter 3: Examples of Scientists Influencing Science

Historical Case Studies: Scientists’ Role in Shaping the Narrative Throughout
history, scientists have significantly influenced the trajectory of scientific
understanding through their interpretations and theories.

• Isaac Newton: His formulation of the laws of motion and universal

gravitation established the mechanistic view of the universe, shaping
scientific thought for centuries. Newton’s work laid the groundwork for
classical physics, demonstrating how individual interpretations can
profoundly impact scientific paradigms.
• Charles Darwin: Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection
revolutionized biology. His interpretations of the evidence from various
fields, including geology and comparative anatomy, led to a new
understanding of species development and the origin of life.
• Albert Einstein: Einstein’s theories of relativity transformed our
understanding of space and time. His personal reluctance to accept quantum
mechanics reflects how scientists’ philosophical views can influence their
interpretations of data and theories.

Modern Case Studies: How Scientists’ Interpretations Affect Modern Debates

• Climate Change: The interpretation of climate data varies among scientists,

leading to differing conclusions about the causes and urgency of climate
change. Some scientists emphasize natural cycles, while others stress human

Page 3 of 11
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!
impact, reflecting how personal and institutional biases can shape scientific
discourse.
• Origin of Life: Debates about the origin of life illustrate how different
theoretical perspectives influence scientific interpretation. Theories range
from abiogenesis (life arising from non-living matter) to the possibility of an
intelligent designer, demonstrating the impact of worldview on scientific
conclusions.

Chapter 4: Worldview and Scientific Interpretation

The Role of Naturalism in Scientific Interpretation Naturalism asserts that
everything can be explained by natural causes and laws, excluding supernatural
explanations. This worldview often shapes how scientists interpret data and
formulate theories.

Naturalism can lead to dismissive attitudes toward evidence that suggests

supernatural or intelligent design. For example, the complexity of biological
systems is often interpreted within a naturalistic framework, which may reject any
notions of intelligent design as unscientific.

Christian Theism and Science Christian apologists argue that science and theistic
belief can coexist harmoniously. From a theistic perspective, scientific discoveries
can be seen as revealing the intricacies of a divine creation. For instance, the fine-
tuning argument suggests that the precise conditions necessary for life point toward
a designer rather than random chance.

Prominent Christian scientists like John Lennox argue that faith in God and
scientific inquiry are not mutually exclusive. They suggest that science, far from
contradicting faith, can complement it by uncovering the order and complexity of
creation.

Philosophy of Science: Is Science Value-Free? The debate over whether science is

value-free or influenced by human values is central to understanding the role of
interpretation. While the scientific method aims for objectivity, the choice of
research questions, interpretation of data, and communication of results are
influenced by the values and assumptions of scientists.

Page 4 of 11
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!
Karl Popper’s Falsifiability: Popper’s criterion of falsifiability emphasizes that
scientific theories must be testable and disprovable. However, even the selection of
which theories to test and how to interpret data can reflect subjective biases.

Thomas Kuhn’s Paradigms: Kuhn’s concept of paradigms highlights that scientific

progress occurs through shifts in overarching frameworks rather than incremental
accumulation of facts. Paradigm shifts demonstrate how scientific interpretations
are influenced by prevailing worldviews.

Chapter 5: The Influence of Bias and Subjectivity

Cognitive Biases in Scientific Work Scientists, like all humans, are susceptible to
cognitive biases that can affect their interpretations. Confirmation bias, availability
heuristic, and anchoring bias are examples of how personal predispositions can
influence scientific research.

For instance, the resistance to the theory of plate tectonics in the geological
community was partly due to entrenched biases and competing theories. Over time,
as more evidence accumulated, the scientific community accepted plate tectonics,
illustrating how biases can delay acceptance of new ideas.

Confirmation Bias in Science Confirmation bias refers to the tendency to favor

information that confirms pre-existing beliefs. In science, this can manifest in
selective data reporting or interpretation.

An example is the debate over climate change, where scientists with different
views may emphasize data that supports their position while downplaying or
dismissing conflicting evidence. This bias underscores the need for critical scrutiny
and diverse perspectives in scientific discourse.

Cultural and Institutional Influences Scientific research is often influenced by

cultural and institutional factors, including funding, political ideologies, and
societal values. These influences can shape research priorities, interpretation of
data, and dissemination of findings.

For example, pharmaceutical companies may fund research that supports their
products, potentially leading to biased outcomes. Similarly, political agendas can
influence scientific research related to environmental policies or health guidelines.

Page 5 of 11
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!

Chapter 6: The Philosophy of Science and Theology: Can

They Coexist?
Philosophy of Science: The Limits of Empiricism Science is grounded in empirical
evidence and the assumption of consistent natural laws. However, it cannot address
metaphysical questions about existence, purpose, or moral values.

Empiricism is limited to what can be observed and tested, leaving questions about
the fundamental nature of reality and purpose to philosophy and theology. This
limitation highlights the need for a broader perspective that encompasses both
scientific and non-scientific modes of understanding.

The Role of Faith in Science Faith in science involves trust in the reliability of
empirical methods and the assumption that the universe is intelligible and
consistent. This trust parallels religious faith, which often involves belief in divine
revelation or purpose.

While scientific faith is about confidence in empirical methods, religious faith

encompasses broader metaphysical beliefs. Both forms of faith are essential to
their respective domains but operate differently.

How Christian Apologists Address the Role of Science Christian apologists like
Frank Turek use the phrase “Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!” to argue
that scientific interpretations are influenced by the worldview of scientists. They
suggest that science and faith are not necessarily in conflict but can be
complementary.

Christian apologists often argue that scientific discoveries can be seen as evidence
of a divine creator rather than a challenge to faith. They point to the historical roots
of modern science in a theistic worldview, noting that many early scientists were
motivated by their religious beliefs.

Chapter 7: Ethical and Moral Considerations in Science

Can Science Address Moral Questions? Science excels in describing how things
work but cannot provide moral or ethical guidance. The distinction between "is"
and "ought" reflects the limits of scientific inquiry in addressing questions about
what people should do or what values they should hold.

Page 6 of 11
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!
While science can explain the evolutionary basis for certain behaviors, it cannot
dictate moral principles or ethical norms. Ethical considerations often require
philosophical or religious frameworks that extend beyond empirical evidence.

The Moral Responsibility of Scientists Scientists have a moral responsibility to

consider the implications of their work and use their discoveries for the benefit of
humanity. However, science itself does not provide a moral framework for guiding
these responsibilities.

Ethical dilemmas in science, such as genetic engineering or artificial intelligence,

require careful consideration of moral values and societal impacts. These
considerations often involve input from ethical, philosophical, and theological
perspectives.

Conclusion
Summary of Key Points The phrase “Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!”
highlights the distinction between science as a methodology and the interpretations
provided by scientists. Science is a powerful tool for understanding the natural
world, but its conclusions are shaped by the perspectives and biases of those who
conduct and interpret research.

The interplay between science and worldview is significant, as scientists’

interpretations are influenced by their philosophical and cultural contexts.
Recognizing the limitations of science and the role of human interpretation is
crucial for understanding the broader implications of scientific discoveries.

The Ongoing Dialogue Between Science and Faith Science and faith often address
different aspects of human experience and can coexist harmoniously. While
science provides insights into the natural world, faith offers perspectives on
purpose, meaning, and moral values. An ongoing dialogue between science and
faith can enrich our understanding of both.

In acknowledging the human element in scientific interpretation, we maintain a

balanced view of science’s role in exploring reality and addressing existential
questions. Embracing the strengths of both scientific and faith-based perspectives
can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the world and our place within
it.

Page 7 of 11
 Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!
HERE IS A NARRATIVE POEM WITH ELEMENTS OF LYRIC POETRY BASED ON
DR. FRNK TUREK’S PHRASE THAT I WROTE TO SUPPLEMENT THIS REPORT:

SONG TITLE: Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!

SONG LYRICS:

(Verse 1)
I was sittin' on the porch, watchin' stars go by,
Heard a preacher sayin’ that science can’t tell us why.
He said, "The data's just a tool, not a voice of its own,
It’s the folks who interpret, who make the facts known."

(Chorus)
Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!
They bring their own perspective to the facts they pursue.
The numbers and the data don’t have a mind of their own,
It’s the heart and the head that make the knowledge known.

(Verse 2)
He talked about the theories that shift with the years,
How new minds and old ones chase the truth through their fears.
From Newton to Darwin, their views shaped the game,
It’s not the science that changes, it’s the way that we frame.

(Chorus)
Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!
They bring their own perspective to the facts they pursue.
The numbers and the data don’t have a mind of their own,
It’s the heart and the head that make the knowledge known.

(Bridge)
There’s bias and beliefs in the lab coats we see,
But science ain’t the judge, it’s the minds that decree.
So when you read the findings and the charts they unfold,
Remember it's the voices that bring the story told.

(Chorus)
Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!
They bring their own perspective to the facts they pursue.
The numbers and the data don’t have a mind of their own,
It’s the heart and the head that make the knowledge known.

(Outro)
So let’s raise a glass to the thinkers and the doers,
To the seekers of truth, the scientific pursuers.
‘Cause science is a journey, but it’s the folks who see,
That give the world its answers, so true and so free.

(Chorus)
Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!
They bring their own perspective to the facts they pursue.
The numbers and the data don’t have a mind of their own,
It’s the heart and the head that make the knowledge known.

Page 8 of 11
 Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!
Here is a biblical breakdown of each line from the narrative poem with
elements of lyrical poetry titled “Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists
Do!” with a focus on integrating scriptural perspectives:
(Verse 1)
"I was sittin' on the porch, watchin' stars go by,"
In Scripture, observing the natural world is a way to marvel at God’s creation. Psalm 19:1 states, "The heavens
declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." This line reflects a biblical view of nature as a
testament to divine craftsmanship.

"Heard a preacher sayin’ that science can’t tell us why."

While science provides insight into the workings of the world, it doesn’t answer existential questions of purpose or
meaning. Ecclesiastes 3:11 notes, "He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the
human heart." Only God can reveal the deeper purposes behind creation.

"He said, 'The data's just a tool, not a voice of its own,"
The Bible acknowledges that human understanding is limited. Proverbs 3:5-6 advises, "Trust in the Lord with all
your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths
straight." Data and science are tools for understanding but cannot replace divine wisdom.

"It’s the folks who interpret, who make the facts known.'"
Interpretation of data reflects human insight, which is fallible. Proverbs 18:13 says, "To answer before listening—
that is folly and shame." It emphasizes the need for careful interpretation and listening, acknowledging the human
element in understanding.

(Chorus)
"Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!"
This line highlights that science itself is neutral, and its interpretation is influenced by human perspectives. Romans
14:5 reminds us, "Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind," indicating personal interpretation and
conviction play a role in understanding.

"They bring their own perspective to the facts they pursue."

Personal perspectives influence how facts are understood. Matthew 7:2 states, "For in the same way you judge
others, you will be judged," suggesting that our views and biases impact our interpretation of information.

"The numbers and the data don’t have a mind of their own,"
Numbers and data are objective but require human interpretation. 1 Corinthians 1:25 says, "For the foolishness of
God is wiser than human wisdom," acknowledging that human wisdom is limited compared to divine understanding.

"It’s the heart and the head that make the knowledge known."
The interplay of emotion and intellect shapes understanding. Proverbs 4:7 notes, "The beginning of wisdom is this:
Get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding," stressing the importance of seeking wisdom and
understanding in all things.

(Verse 2)
"He talked about the theories that shift with the years,"
Scientific theories evolve over time. Ecclesiastes 1:9 states, "What has been will be again, what has been done will
be done again; there is nothing new under the sun," reflecting the cyclical nature of human discovery and
understanding.

Page 9 of 11
 Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!
"How new minds and old ones chase the truth through their fears."
Human pursuit of truth is often fraught with fear and uncertainty. Isaiah 41:10 reassures, "So do not fear, for I am
with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God," offering comfort amidst the search for truth.

"From Newton to Darwin, their views shaped the game,"

Historical figures like Newton and Darwin shaped scientific thought. Proverbs 1:5 states, "Let the wise listen and
add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance," acknowledging the importance of learning from those
who have contributed to human knowledge.

"It’s not the science that changes, it’s the way that we frame."
Scientific frameworks evolve, but truth remains constant. John 14:6 has Jesus saying, "I am the way and the truth
and the life," indicating that while human understanding evolves, the ultimate truth is unchanging.

(Chorus)
"Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!"
Reiterating that the interpretation of science is influenced by individuals, reminding us of Romans 14:5 about
personal conviction and interpretation.

"They bring their own perspective to the facts they pursue."

Reiterates how personal perspective impacts interpretation, supported by Matthew 7:2.

"The numbers and the data don’t have a mind of their own,"
Affirms that while data is objective, its interpretation is subjective, consistent with 1 Corinthians 1:25.

"It’s the heart and the head that make the knowledge known."
Restates the importance of wisdom and understanding in interpreting knowledge, supported by Proverbs 4:7.

(Bridge)
"There’s bias and beliefs in the lab coats we see,"
Acknowledges human biases in scientific work, consistent with Proverbs 18:13 on the need for careful listening and
interpretation.

"But science ain’t the judge, it’s the minds that decree."
Science alone doesn’t determine truth; human minds interpret it. James 1:5 advises, "If any of you lacks wisdom,
you should ask God," indicating that wisdom comes from divine guidance rather than mere data.

"So when you read the findings and the charts they unfold,"
Encourages critical thinking when examining scientific data. Proverbs 2:2-6 says, "Turning your ear to wisdom and
applying your heart to understanding," which is a call to engage thoughtfully with information.

"Remember it's the voices that bring the story told."

Highlights that interpretation brings meaning to data. Proverbs 3:5-6 reminds us to trust in the Lord’s guidance for
true understanding.

(Chorus)
"Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!"
Reaffirms the role of human interpretation in science, reflecting Romans 14:5.

"They bring their own perspective to the facts they pursue."

Emphasizes the impact of perspective on interpretation, supported by Matthew 7:2.

Page 10 of 11
 Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do!
"The numbers and the data don’t have a mind of their own,"
Reiterates the objectivity of data and the subjectivity of interpretation, consistent with 1 Corinthians 1:25.

"It’s the heart and the head that make the knowledge known."
Restates the importance of wisdom and understanding, reflecting Proverbs 4:7.

(Outro)
"So let’s raise a glass to the thinkers and the doers,"
Celebrates those who seek knowledge, consistent with Proverbs 1:5 about learning and guidance.

"To the seekers of truth, the scientific pursuers."

Acknowledges the pursuit of truth in science, supported by John 14:6’s declaration of Jesus as the truth.

"‘Cause science is a journey, but it’s the folks who see,"

Reflects that while science progresses, interpretation remains personal. Isaiah 41:10 offers comfort during this
journey.

"That give the world its answers, so true and so free."

Affirms the role of interpretation in delivering answers, supported by Proverbs 2:2-6’s call for understanding.

(Chorus)
"Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do!"
Reiterates the core message about the role of interpretation in science, consistent with earlier lines.

"They bring their own perspective to the facts they pursue."

Reemphasizes the influence of perspective, aligned with biblical principles on personal interpretation.

"The numbers and the data don’t have a mind of their own,"
Restates the objectivity of data and the subjectivity of its interpretation.

"It’s the heart and the head that make the knowledge known."
Concludes with the importance of wisdom and understanding in interpreting knowledge.

I thought my poem would make a great country song and an anthem to Frank’s
phrase. Since I am neither a singer nor a composer, I used AI to create the music
and vocals. Admittedly, my vocals might not be "singing material" and could even
remind you of Roseanne Barr’s national anthem! But the essence and message of
the poem are what truly matter. I put the lyrics video that Suno (an AI
songwriting website and a smart media app) did here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRbhQcExvks

Page 11 of 11