Wikipedia says “Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning ‘knowledge’) is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice, from which a good deal of randomness in outcome has been removed.”
In the most general way we can think of science as knowledge. In a more particular approach we would consider contemporary science as a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and to that organized body of knowledge gained through that approach
Science has two paths, the first called experimental science which is the process of exploring knowledge and distinctly different from the second, applied science which is the application of the scientific approach to some specific human need. These two branches of science are undeniably interconnected.
Wikipedia goes on to say, “Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions.”
Scientists typically publish the work they do so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check findings and conclusions. This process enables the better understanding of past events, and a better ability to predict future events, of the same nature as those tested.
Scientific literacy is the term for the ability of the general population to understand the basic concepts related to science. The level of this literacy can often be quite low, even in populations that would otherwise be considered “literate“. This is often due to political doctrine or religious dogma positioned to restrict or replace recognized science.
It is my experience that many who would consider belief in childhood fantasies like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny to be foolish for an adult will yet accept positions postulated by their political or religious leaders or spokespersons in spite of their obviously flawed character simply because they “believe in“, and therefore trust, the source implicitly.
Examples of this would be the Christian right-wing position that,
a) evolution is a myth, and
b) man walked on the earth with dinosaurs.
Both of these positions are demonstrably flawed though no one need loose their basic faith because of it. Evolution does not, in fact, conflict with the Biblical account of creation nor were fossilized human footprints found walking along side of dinosaur prints.
The problem with politics and/or religion taking a position on science, beside the fact that they are so often wrong, is that their credibility suffers so greatly when they have to change their position later in light of overwhelming, and no longer deniable, proof.
Consider the Catholic Church’s position in the past on the earth being the center of the universe (solar system) and mankind being the only sentient being in the universe (galaxy). The former, of course, has for a long time now been entirely proven otherwise and a few years ago the Catholic Church changed its position on the latter, allowing that there was a significant likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
Perhaps Christians should consider Matthew 22:21 (King James Version)
21 …Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
I find that most religious scholars and leaders have enough trouble dealing with their own canons and dogma, let alone delving into arenas where they know little or nothing.