Roger Olson, evangelical theologian and blogger: Let me be absolutely clear: I do believe there are “dogmas of science.” I do not claim that ALL scientists believe in those dogmas. What I do believe, and have experienced, is that EVERY discipline of study and professional research and practice has SOME underlying assumptions that are not generally allowed to be challenged. Thomas Kuhn demonstrated this phenomenon in his groundbreaking book of philosophical science “The Nature of Scientific Revolutions.”
So here is a specific example. Watch the following Youtube video “Physicist Michio Kaku on the shift in the UFO phenomenon.” Now, set aside, bracket out, whatever you think of Joe Rogan. That’s irrelevant. What’s relevant here is what one of the world’s leading scientists says at about 14:53. (But I urge you to watch the entire video for context.)
What is relevant is what one of the world’s leading physicists says. When Rogan asks him what he used to believe about UFOs he refers to the “giggle factor” among scientists and how belief in UFOs was “the ‘third rail’ in your scientific reputation.” I assume you know what “giggle factor” and “third rail” refer to. Kaku goes on to suggest that there may be laws of nature we do not yet know and even that they might contradict our current laws of nature.
Gary: First we must agree on our definition of “dogma”. Here is the dictionary definition:
dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
incontrovertible: not able to be denied or disputed.
Therefore, a dogma is a principle or belief that cannot be challenged. It is accepted as fact without question. The Doctrine of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is a dogma. It cannot be challenged. The evangelical theologian who tries will be fired on the spot. Neither the Law of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution, nor any other principle in science meets this definition.
I’m not a scientist, but I am a physician whose training was based upon the scientific method and respect for expert consensus opinion. I and most university educated people believe that the scientific method is the best method so far in human experience for evaluating the truths of our universe. Yes, there are assumptions in science, but there are no “dogmas” by the definition above. Even the “Law” of gravity can be overturned if new evidence surfaces to disprove it. No law or theory is off limits to revision in science. Even the “law of gravity” is just a theory. And no, in science, “theory” is not synonymous with “opinion”, as Creationists often claim. Once something reaches the status of theory it is considered fact until proven otherwise.
The scientific method by definition can only evaluate the natural world. The scientific method does not claim to have jurisdiction in the metaphysical. The scientific method cannot disprove the existence of gods, angels, and devils. Can the scientific method be used to evaluate UFO claims? I don’t see why not, if that UFO consists of matter. If that UFO is a supernatural being, using supernatural means of travel, then, no. Science, using the scientific method, cannot evaluate that claim.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
I totally agree that “science” has no dogmas. It’s SCIENTISTS who have dogmas.
LikeLike
This post comes from a discussion on theologian Roger Olson’s blog. I left this comment this morning. I doubt he will publish it:
Roger: An assumption and a dogma are not the same thing. No rational university educated person would claim they are. Scientists may assume that gravity will still be in effect tomorrow, but there is no scientific dogma that it must. Scientists may assume that UFO’s are not real, but there is no dogma that says they cannot be. Good evidence can overturn any assumption, theory, or even law of science.
You are misleading your readers with this post. You are equating assumptions with dogmas.
I think you need to acknowledge in the comments or in an addendum to your post that you misspoke in order to demonstrate to everyone that you are not driven by an agenda on this issue.
LikeLike