Regarding scientific theory, a chemistry text book cited the United States National Academy of Sciences:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter (stating that everything is made of atoms) or the germ theory of disease (which states that many diseases are caused by germs). Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact”(1)
The text book goes on to state there is no room for the phrase ” just a scientific theory”.
The problem is, within the scientific community, there are numerous people, many in very high levels, who equate evolution and abiogenesis ( life coming from chemicals). Thus there is a widespread claim that science has shown abiogenesis to be as certain as gravity. They say anyone not accepting abiogenesis is as dumb as anyone denying gravity or germs. This widespread attitude is absolutely false.
The veracity of knowledge derived through the scientific paradigm is justly elaborated on in a book by two scholars who work in the field of IT Security. It is cited in a paper found on ” Science Direct’. ( a premier, peer reviewed academic journal).
” The strength of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced—that is, it is not necessary to believe the results or outcomes of a particular researcher, as one can replicate the experiment and determine whether the results are true or false. The outcomes of the hypothesis testing do not depend on a particular experimenter, so that faith or belief does not play any part in the logical proof or material evidence on whether a scientific idea or theory is adopted or discarded. Thus, a theory is accepted, not based on the proponent, but rather on the quality of the results obtained through observations or experiments. Results obtained through the process of the scientific method are repeatable and reproducible.”(2).
Devotees can accept the scientific method described directly above. However, we note that abiogenesis has never been observed in nature. Additionally, life has never been created from chemicals in laboratories. They can’t give a method for me to personally observe it.
This, I am not a fool for not being convinced of abiogenesis; rather, my lack of conviction is recommended by the scientific paradigm. Although I am a layman, I boldly assert, without apology, that abiogenesis does not fit the criteria for a scientific theory.
As Srila Prabhupada said the only thing we have direct observation of is ” life comes from life”. The assertion that abiogenesis is supported by science, to the level of virtual certainty, is a worldwide bluff.
The scientific paradigm differs from Krishna Consciousness because its axiom is that all phenonama have only chemical causes. On the other hand, in terms of epistemology( how we know something for certain) the scientific paradigm can be truly applied to Krishna Consciousness only. Srila Prabhupada said numerous times Krishna Consciousness it is not a belief, it is a science.
Why? BG 9.2. Krishna says pratyaksha. Krishna Consciousness is directly experienced. We should accept Krishna Consciousness only because we can directly experience it. We should reject abiogenesis because it can’t be observed. Blind faith in science or philosophy/religion is simply ignorance.
Some neophyte devotees argue that Krishna Consciousness is not science because it can’t be proven to someone else- it is subjective. But according to material science I am not supposed to rely on someone else for proof. I can accept something as plausible if lots of testimony exists, but for proof I need to go and observe it personally. Similarly the scripture give testimonies of uncountable people experiencing Krishna Consciousness. That, and considering all that can be possibly gained from it, justifies my trying it out. And the epistemology is there for me to distinguish my experience from those of the material senses. That is most scientific.
We must all admit that the origin of the universe cannot be known by the paradigm of material science. A material scientist can’t go back in time and experience the big bang, and tell others how to do so. But if there is an all powerful God, that God can reveal Himself to us and we can know Him as the Origin with absolute certainty.
As such, those in the scientific field should acknowledge that their methods are not fit for the question of the origin of the universe. They should stick with technology. Instead they bluff the people of the world and convince them science is fact an religion is only subjective belief. If we can’t see the heinous affect this has on human existence we should at least understand it based on how much Srila Prabhupada spoke out against it. We should understand that Srila Prabhupada arguments are the most powerful and elaborate on them.
(2).https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123944368/security-science.
by Paramadayala Nityananda Dasa