Bible-Based Knowledge (Science)

Introduction

Since the publication of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” in 1859, (Darwin 1993) Christians have been struggling with how to fit the “science” of evolution1 (also referred to in this paper as nature-god science, since it focuses on explanations in which nature performs the engineering or decision making function) into the Word of God. Pope Francis said in 2014, “God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life” (McKenna 2014, 1). He went on to say, “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve” (McKenna 2014, 1). This belief is common through a line of Popes who have attempted to marry the “science” of evolution with the Bible. “In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine. In 1996, St. John Paul II endorsed Pius’ statement” (McKenna 2014, 1).

In 1578, Lambert Daneau wrote an intriguing book in which he discussed the issues of the Bible and what he called “natural philosophy.” Natural philosophy is what “science” used to be called before it was called “science.” However, at that time, natural philosophy was defined as

the true knowledge of discourse concerning the Creation and distinction of all this whole world with the parts thereof, of the causes by which it was so wrought, and likewise of the effects which follow thereon, appertaining to the praise of God the Creator. (Daneau 1578, 1)

See also Faulkner 2022, 363.

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) published a book in 1948 called Modern Science and Christian Faith. This book had the goal of demonstrating that “[b]etween the observations of science and a simple, direct interpretation of the Bible narrative, there exists a harmony such as would be expected of a Book having the same Author as the physical world” (American Scientific Affiliation 1948, v).

The ASA claims that the “observations of science [which the ASA interprets as naturalistic science] and a simple, direct interpretation of the Bible narrative” (American Scientific Affiliation 1948, v) can be harmonized. However, this cannot be done without assaulting either the biblical narrative or naturalistic science. In other words, the two are mutually exclusive and cannot be harmonized unless one or the other is changed to mean something that it is not intended to mean. A straightforward reading of Genesis chapter one is not in concert with the claims of naturalistic evolutionist. Table 1 provides a list of both the biblical order of creation and the order of naturalistic evolution and shows the many places in which the two cannot be harmonized.

As shown in Table 1, the Bible states that the earth was created before the sun, moon, and stars. Nature-god evolutionists claim that the sun and stars were formed before the earth. The Bible states that plants were created before the sun. Nature-god evolutionists claim that the sun came into being before plants. The Bible says that land animals, such as dinosaurs, were created after the birds. Naturalistic evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds. The Bible says that man and the land animals were created on the sixth day. Naturalistic evolution claims that land animals came into being millennia before man.

The only way to harmonize these diametrically opposed positions is to argue that one or the other does not mean what it says. In such cases, the usual tactic is to claim that the biblical narrative is incorrectly interpreted. An alternative interpretation (for example, the day-age theory or gap theory) is then offered to allow for the harmonization of the biblical narrative and nature-god evolution. Therefore, it is generally the biblical narrative that is assaulted. For example, in dealing with the interpretation of Genesis 1:7 which reads, “And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so”2, the ASA provides the following:

The word translated “firmament” means space. In other words, God made a space between the oceans and the clouds. It is generally believed that in an early stage the earth was quite hot, possibly much hotter than the boiling point of water. If so, there could have been no oceans, for the heat would have evaporated all the free water and the earth would have been completely covered with dense clouds coming right down to its surface. As the surface cooled, this water would begin to condense upon the surface of the earth and form bodies of water, but the heat of the earth would still be sufficient to keep a large part of the water suspended as clouds. They would form a very dense covering right down to the surface of the water. When the earth cooled still further and approached its present temperature, a space would develop between the oceans and the clouds. The clouds for a long time would still continue to be very dense and completely hide the sun, moon, and stars. Yes, the earth had to go through a stage in which a space formed between the oceans and the clouds. (American Scientific Affiliation 1948, 20)

In the narrative above, the Bible is interpreted to fit into the nature-god narrative rather than the naturalistic narrative being understood beginning with the Bible. Recall that the ASA claimed that a “straightforward” reading of the Bible could be harmonized with natural science. As shown above, this is not the case. What they really mean is that a straightforward reading of the Bible can be harmonized with the claims of nature-god science only if nature-god science forms the basis for the interpretation, in which case, it is not really a straightforward reading of the Word of God. Why is it, by the way, that it is always the Bible that is assaulted to achieve harmony? Does the authority of Scripture not carry the weight of the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Creator? In the eyes of nature-god scientists, the answer to the second question is “No.” In their eyes, the observations of natural science are the final authority. Natural science, in their view, is the only true way of discerning truths about the universe, so where there is conflict between the Bible and natural science, natural science must take precedence and the Bible must be reinterpreted (which is another way of saying assaulted).

Hence, it is the person’s worldview that drives the narrative. A person’s worldview consists of the underlying assumptions and thought processes that guide their thinking. For the purposes of this paper, there are two worldviews of interest. A biblical worldview and a non-biblical worldview.

It is important to be perfectly clear at this point. This is not to say that non-Christians, or naturalists, cannot do studies of nature using a method called the scientific method. Nor is it saying that they cannot make discoveries of natural phenomenon that God created, if God chooses to reveal that knowledge to them. Yes, nature-god scientists can do what is known of today as “science,” and even (sometimes) draw correct conclusions from the data, but it cannot be considered “true biblical science.” It is “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20) because it does not have the primary goal of honoring the Creator God. Its goal is to honor nature as god.

Non-biblical worldview

The non-biblical worldview is held by an unregenerate person. This is one that has not surrendered control of their life to the Lord Jesus Christ and has not become a “new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17). When a person becomes a Christian, by surrendering control of their life to the Lord Jesus Christ, they “receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon [them]” (Acts 1:8). In simple terms, the unregenerate person is a non-Christian that does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them.

Does this mean that an unregenerate person cannot practice science? Of course, they can. But, as will be discussed more later, it cannot be biblically based science. “The natural (unregenerate) man lacks knowledge, wisdom, and understanding that are necessary components of spiritual understanding. Such a person cannot develop a truthful, biblically based worldview” (Deckard 2011, 22). Hence, is it unreasonable to expect a nature-god scientist with a non-biblical worldview to practice science from a biblical perspective.

Biblical worldview

On the other hand, Christians, who have surrendered control of their life to the Lord Jesus Christ, have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to provide Godly wisdom (primarily through God’s written Word), “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). “God in Christ has abounded toward us in all wisdom; Thus, there is no other true wisdom” (Morris 2012, 1805, commentary on Ephesians 1:8, emphasis added).

Creation Science Challenge

The challenge in the creation science community is that many are attempting to perform biblically based science using a philosophy of science that is based on a non-biblical or nature-god worldview. The philosophy of science, based on a non-biblical worldview today, treats science and the Bible as two different entities that may, or may not, need to be reconciled. This has been the case since the transition of the philosophy of science throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Science often is defined as the study of the natural world using the five senses. Notice that since the subject of science is the natural world, there is much emphasis on nature in science. Indeed, what we now call science originally was called natural philosophy. It was William Whewell in the 1830s who suggested the name change from natural philosophy to science, and that convention rapidly took hold. Previously, science referred to systematized study of any subject that was not considered an art. (Faulkner 2017, 16)

So, the definition of science was changed in the mid-nineteenth century from a more general term that includes the “systematized study of any subject that was not considered an art” to a more specific definition that focuses on the study of nature (usually from a nature-god science perspective). Science in today’s world is based on the concept of modern empiricism which is:

the doctrine that all concepts, ideas and substantive knowledge available to human beings must ultimately rest solely on experience—in particular, on sensory experience or observation. . . . What this sort of empiricism amounted to was of course an attempt to reduce all knowledge to scientific knowledge, all truths to empirical, scientific truths and all methods of knowing to empirical, scientific methods. (Ratzsch 2000, 27–28)

While there have always been people who hold the Word of God in higher esteem than natural science (for example, George McCready Price [Wise 2018]), the period between the mid-nineteenth and mid-twentieth century was marked by such people being in the Christian minority. It was not until the publication of The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb and Morris 1961) that the authority of God’s Word over natural science made a resurgence. Since then, John Whitcomb, Henry Morris, and thousands of other Christian scientists, including this author, have taken the view of putting Scripture in a position of authority over nature-god science.

However, the ASA makes an interesting point when they say that one should expect a harmony between the Bible and the physical world. God is the creator of the physical world, and He is the Author of the Bible. So, yes, they should agree. While the ASA takes the view that nature-god science takes precedence over the Bible, the more consistent Christian view is that the Bible (as the Word of the Creator God) must take precedence over natural science and, in fact, defines science. In other words, scientists3 should not only hold the Bible in esteem over nature but also take their lead in the study of nature from the Scriptures. Where the Bible provides specifics about creation, this information must be considered incontrovertible. Where the Bible is not specific, biblical principles about creation must guide the study of creation.

The non-regenerate scientist, however, is not interested in reconciliation of the two. Neither should the regenerate scientist since there is no friction. All science interpreted in light of Scripture would necessarily agree with Scripture. Yet the creation science community has been unnecessarily attempting to reconcile nature-god science with the Bible since before the rebirth of the modern creation science movement. It has even reached the point where a recent creation science book defined science as

“. . . a search for truth through repeated experimentation and observation.’ . . . Science is what we see, feel, touch, or observe directly, or by artificial extensions of our senses using things like microscopes and telescopes. Scientists have a method to arrive at scientific truth in the natural world. (Oard and Carter 2021, 8, emphasis added).

However, the biblical basis of this philosophy of science is questionable because according to the Bible there is only one truth. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6, emphasis added). Therefore, there can only be one truth. There cannot be biblical truth and scientific truth if they are different.

Succumbing to the notion of “scientific truth” and trying to perform biblical science based on that notion should be, for the regenerate scientist, irrational.

For instance, it has recently been argued that scientific knowledge is whatever scientists of a particular era accept, and scientific truth is whatever scientists know in that sense. Thus the beliefs of scientists determine what truth is, and truth will change along with their beliefs. (Ratzsch 2000, 52)

According to the non-biblical view, “since there is no complete and stable independent external reality to which we have access, there is no particular point in talking about truth in science (except of a relative sort)” (Ratzsch 2000, 49).

But our God is not pliable. Our God is an unchanging God. He is the Creator of the Universe, and our study of His universe should be based on His truth.

The first prerequisite to ascertaining God leading in some matter, or the truth about some doctrinal question, is a genuine willingness to believe the truth and to follow God’s will before they are made known, even if the answer goes against one’s preference.(Morris 2012, 1585, commentary on John 7:17)

Hence, the Bible, and specifically the first 11 chapters of Genesis, describes that God created the universe about 6,000 years ago and that creation was greatly affected by the taint of man’s sin and a global Flood. God’s creative acts are the foundation of His creation and, therefore, the foundation for every field of science. Even though the Bible does not give details and is written in common language, it does provide enough information to show that God not only created the physical universe, but also provided the material to be studied by every field of science. Hence, true science begins with the Bible. It is, therefore, appropriate during a scientific study to consider both the existence and the power of God. A study that only looks at nature without acknowledging the creative acts of God is missing the foundational element of creation and is not a biblically based scientific study. It may be a study of nature, but it is not biblically based.

Therefore, creation scientists should not base our philosophy of science, scientific methods, or scientific endeavors on those consistent with the non-biblical worldview.

Human wisdom—whether ancient Greek philosophy or modern evolutionary science—has always sought to explain the origin of the world by some means apart from its God and creator. In this spirit of God, this attempt is not true wisdom, true philosophy, or true science, but mere rebellious foolishness. (Morris 2012, 1736, commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:21)

Bible-based knowledge (science)

Bible-based knowledge, or science, is an outgrowth of Scripture which is used to gain knowledge about God and His creation.

It is no accident, of course, that the Bible begins with God. God is what the Bible is all about. One of the first lessons that we learn when reading the Bible is the importance of asking the right questions. Today people are prone to ask, “What is this passage saying to me?” We put ourselves in the center hermeneutically. Instead, the first question that we should always ask about any passage of the Bible is, “What is this passage teaching me about God?” For God is first, and he is the center, and he is last. (Phillips 2015, 1–2)

Therefore, the regenerate scientist should recognize that science is a form of worship. A scientist with a biblical worldview should do science primarily to worship God with increased knowledge as a secondary goal. This does not mean that all regenerate scientists are worshiping God with their science. Whether or not the science of a regenerate scientist is an act of worship is a matter of choice and the attitude of the scientist at that time. Only the regenerate scientist knows for sure which is primary in their heart. Non-regenerate scientists, as a consequence of their worldview, perform their nature-god science, either consciously or unconsciously, as a means of worshiping nature.

This paper proposes that there are three basic levels of knowledge employed during the course of scientific work:

1. Inherent knowledge—knowledge a person is born with (that is, the use of involuntary muscles, the ability to do wrong). This type of knowledge is available to both regenerate and non-regenerate people since it is inherent to God’s human creation.
2. Learned knowledge—knowledge learned from experience, education, etc.
3. Divinely imparted knowledge—knowledge provided by God through the Holy Spirit and not attributable as inherent or learned. The Holy Spirit helps the regenerate scientist to interpret Scripture and can possibly provide inspirational knowledge (for example, an “aha” moment). The non-regenerate person does not have access to the Holy Spirit to provide this level of knowledge.

Going back to the earlier discussion on the harmonization of Scripture and science. The objection might be raised, “isn’t it a matter of how you interpret the Bible, not whether or not you believe it is truth?” The answer is no. The rules of biblical interpretation, as well as the rules of science, are that the simplest, most straightforward interpretation is the preferred interpretation. Therefore, if the simplest, most straightforward interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 is that God created everything in six solar days, that is the preferred interpretation. In other words, nature-god science is not an adequate justification for changing the simplest, most straightforward interpretation. On the other hand, if one believes that nature-god science takes precedence, and a nature-god scientist says that God could not have created everything in six solar days, then the simplest, most straightforward interpretation is unacceptable. They will then go through whatever hermeneutical gymnastics are necessary to reinterpret Scripture to match nature-god science. See the earlier example of the ASA.

The genealogies in Genesis are probably even more crucial to the creation vs. nature-god evolution question. Again, the simplest, most straightforward interpretation is that God not only created everything in six solar days, but He did so a little over 6,000 years ago. If the Bible is preeminent, then that is the way it is. If nature-god science is preeminent, the Bible is obviously incorrect and only reinterpreting it by whatever hermeneutical hoop necessary will save the Bible from its folly.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Bible is not compatible with nature-god science. They are in direct conflict, so they cannot both be truth. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6, emphasis added). In John 17:17, Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” There can only be one truth. If nature-god science is truth, no hermeneutical gymnastics will reconcile the Bible to nature-god science. The Bible loses its veracity. If the Bible is truth, and there is something missing in our understanding, we just have not figured it out yet. Dr. Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), puts it this way, “truth is the foundation of science. If you trash the truth, there is no science” (Kinley and Damadian 2015, 154, emphasis his). True science, then, is the study of the laws of nature as descriptions of the systematic way God created and normally upholds His universe.

All truth belongs to God, no matter who happens to discover or proclaim it. From the physical laws of nature and the universe to truth about God in creation to spiritual truth revealed by Scripture, it all originates in an eternal God and Creator of us all. (Kinley and Damadian 2015, 164)

Maybe if scientists started with the Bible as truth and worked from there, they would come to the right conclusions more quickly. Then again, it is unreasonable to expect the unregenerate scientist to consider the Bible as a source of truth.

Biblically Based Science

The following definition of true biblical science is proposed.

Biblical science is glorifying God through the study of processes and phenomena to discover the truths of His creation including the taint of man’s sin on that creation.

This definition recognizes the following tenets:

1. First and foremost, biblical or creation scientists are doing their work to honor God. Recognition of this primary purpose should also serve to mitigate the inevitable human fault of ego driven arguments. By mitigating the “pride of ownership,” continuing to honor God first should help in building a cohesive biblical creation model.
2. Our goal as scientists is to study and understand God through the world and universe He created. The Bible provides a solid foundation for all fields of science. As such, the Bible is the starting point of scientific inquiry.
3. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7). As we search the Scriptures and pursue our scientific investigation, we must do so understanding that all knowledge comes from God. We can know nothing without Him. God can conceal what He chooses. “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing” (Proverbs 25:2). The second half of the verse is “but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” Therefore, it is an honor to engage in scientific inquiry in the fear of the Lord while awaiting a revelation from Him.
4. God’s creation of the world and universe was a miraculous act. Hence, true science begins with God’s miracle of creation and studies the effects of these miracles. The ultimate prize for the true scientist is to understand something of the miracle of creation with respect to the chosen line of scientific inquiry. This understanding will lead to new knowledge that can then be used to enhance technological advances for the benefit of man.

Biblical Philosophy of Science

“The philosophy of science is basically the study of what science is, what it does, how it works, why it works, and what we should make of it” (Ratzsch 2000, 7). Faulkner (2022) provides a detailed review of the development of the current philosophy of science as it is known by the world today.

Both biblical and nature-god scientists rely upon unity and consistency in God’s creation.

Since God imposed this unity and order upon the world, if we discover principles that describe how this order pays out, then we can view the principles as God’s laws of how the world operates (this is where thinking God’s thoughts after Him comes in). (Faulkner 2022, 373)

God is not only the creator of all things, He is also the sustainer of all things.

The things created by Christ are now being sustained, or conserved, or held together, by Him. He is “upholding all things by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3). “In him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). The most basic of all scientific principles is implied in these two verses (1:16-17); that is, the principle of conservation of mass and energy or “all things”. (Morris 2012, 1832, commentary on Colossians 1:17)

This gives the biblical scientist a unique advantage.

So the fundamental characteristics of science and the fundamental assumptions of science have some foundation for the Christian, but the secular thinker must often accept them as mere assumptions—as brute presuppositions. The Christian thus has a broader context not only for doing science but for thinking about science itself. (Ratzsch 2000, 16)

This is because the Christian, or regenerate, scientist has a basis for accepting the uniformity and consistency of creation. The non-regenerate scientist has no basis since “the principle of uniformity of nature is not a provable principle. And if explanations and predictions depend on general principles that rest on this uniformity principle, then scientific results will always be less than absolutely proven” (Ratzsch 2000, 22–23).

As discussed earlier, there are two different worldview approaches to science, the biblical and non-biblical worldviews. This can be problematic when the regenerate scientist tries to apply non-regenerate scientific philosophies.

Normal science is thus investigation bound by a shared paradigm, and it consists largely by puzzle solving, solving puzzles concerning how to apply the paradigm to new phenomena. During periods of normal science the shared paradigm serves to define the relevant discipline or scientific community (those who do not accept the paradigm are labeled pseudoscientist or worse), to define what are legitimate scientific problems, to define what are acceptable solutions to problems, to guide research and to suggest new lines of research. (Ratzsch 2000, 42)

Hence, the regenerate scientist cannot accept the conclusions of the non-regenerate scientist and the non-regenerate scientist cannot accept the conclusions of the regenerate scientist. Any attempt at reconciliation of the two worldviews is folly. This is because

People with different paradigms will use some of the same terms to mean at least subtly different things. Thus even if they use all the same terms and sentences, they will not be saying the same things. There will be to some degree a failure to communicate, a talking past each other. (Ratzsch 2000, 46)

This is why the regenerate and non-regenerate scientific communities never have and never will be able to reconcile their differences.

These points together imply an additional consequential result, also recognized and accepted by Kuhn. Since holders of different paradigms cannot even make all of the same observations (perception), and since they will have a hard time communicating to each other what they do observe (meaning), holders of different paradigms will have a hard time comparing their paradigms in order to settle their disputes. And since their respective evaluative judgments will be directed by their paradigms, which may contain different evaluative criteria (relativism), they could not objectively resolve their differences even if they could manage the comparison. (Ratzsch 2000, 47)

A regenerate scientist that attempts to begin with or incorporate the conclusions of the non-regenerate scientific community is at a distinct disadvantage. “In fact, Kuhn suggested that it is probably impossible for a single mind to hold two competing paradigms before itself and do a point-by-point comparison. A mind in the grip of one paradigm apparently cannot quite grasp all of another” (Ratzsch 2000, 48). “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways” (James 1:8).

This highlights the problematic nature of attempting to identify “scientific truths.” Without a biblical foundation, truth becomes relative and dependent upon the worldview of the community. “And if truth is unavailable, then we must settle for what we can get—for example, the consensus of the scientific community as defining ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’.” (Ratzsch 2000, 59)

For the non-regenerate scientist, “It is of course true we do not have somewhere a text that contains all scientific truth, one to which we can compare our theories and see whether we are on the right track” (Ratzsch 2000, 59). However, we do have a text that contains the foundation for all truth. That text is the Bible. Hence, the regenerate scientist, whose purpose is to honor God, only has one place to start and has the advantage of having a place to turn to be grounded in truth.

Biblically Based Scientific Method

Fig. 1 illustrates the overall biblical scientific model. This model starts with God who is outside of creation (Genesis 1:1). God, then created the space, time, matter continuum. In doing so, He established and upholds physical processes and phenomena that govern the operation of these continuum through His power. With this in place, God created the land and plants (Day 3), astronomical bodies, (Day 4), marine and flying creatures (Day 5) and land animals and man (Day 6). He then gave man, who was uniquely created in His image, the ability and mandate to study and learn His creation. Eventually, this mandate was divided into theoretical and applied, or engineering, sciences. Interestingly, the sciences have been divided into broad categories that are consistent with the creation model. These are; physics (the study of the space, time, matter continuum), astronomy (the study of the astronomical bodies and phenomena), biology (the study of plants, animals, and man), and geology (the study of the land).

Fig. 1. Overall biblical scientific model.

[W]e must distinguish at least two levels of theory. One level (variously called ‘maxi-theories’ or ‘research programs’ or ‘research traditions’) comprise the broad, conceptual frameworks within which the day-to-day activities of science take place. The other level consists of the more detailed, specific theories that are attempts to deal with particular phenomena . . . [mini-theories].

The maxi-theories are relatively difficult to move, and it takes an enormous amount of empirical pressure to shift them. . . . on the other hand, the specific mini-theories are much more subject to the immediate effects of the empirical data. (Ratzsch 2000, 64–65)

Each of the broad regenerate scientific communities (physics, astronomy, biology, geology) should identify the biblically based maxi-theories that form the basis for future studies. Mini-theories can follow.

For present purposes we will use the term theory to refer to a network of propositions, some of which involve theoretical concepts, which (ideally) provides a systematic, rigorous account of some portion of the [created] realm. A theoretical scientific concept we will take to be a concept that has application, if at all, to physical entities, processes or events not directly observable. (Ratzsch 2000, 74, his use of the term “natural” was changed to “created” to fit the context of this discussion)

To some extent, the maxi-theories can encapsulate the first two steps of the six-step process of the biblical scientific method outlined below (Overman 2021). Fig. 2 illustrates the use of maxi and mini theories.

Fig. 2. Maxi/mini theory model.

The biblically based scientific method is to start with the Bible and uses the following six steps:

1. Suppose a regenerate scientist is ready to start a scientific inquiry. Under the biblically based method, the scientist will begin by prayerfully searching the Scriptures to see what specific, if any, information the Scriptures contain about the subject. For example, if the scientist is researching birds, the Scriptures specifically state that they were all created on the fifth day of creation. This is where maxi-theories for each community play a large part.
2. The next step for the scientist using the biblical method is to prayerfully search the Scriptures for any biblical principles that should be applied to the subject of the inquiry. If the scientist is researching animals, the scriptural principle of the taint of man’s sin being applied to the whole of creation would be applicable. Hence, any scientific inquiry must consider the effects of this taint on the animals. Maxi-theories may apply here. In some cases, mini-theories may apply.
3. Once the scientist has as good an understanding as possible of the biblical considerations, information and studies that have already been performed can be identified and evaluated. This may include the work of both regenerate and non-regenerate researchers. The evaluation will include determining how well the information and results are consistent with the biblical information and principles already learned. Any conclusions or results that are not consistent with the biblical information is rejected. If the researcher is looking at a paper that concluded that dinosaurs evolved into birds, this conclusion is rejected because it is inconsistent with the biblical principles of the order of creation and the created kinds. The goal of this step is to determine what relevant knowledge has already been revealed by God and where there are gaps in the knowledge. These gaps can be used to develop mini-theories for evaluation.
4. Once the gaps in the knowledge and mini-theories have been identified, research questions can be formulated to close those gaps. This is the formulation of the hypothesis that may close a gap in knowledge that has yet to be revealed by God. The hypothesis is used to enhance what is known about the phenomenon or principles as they relate to God’s creation. For example, in the study of fossils, a biblically based hypothesis may be that bones have permineralized over decades. This is built upon the biblical principle of a young earth and the flood.
5. Now the scientist is ready to develop and perform the experiments to gather the data. These experiments and information gathering techniques are the same as used by everyone. The difference is the principles, philosophies, and information included in the development of the experiment. Using the hypothesis that bones permineralized over decades, an experiment can be developed where some bones can be put into a favorable environment for permineralization, with samples tested each year to determine the extent of permineralization. After a few years, the results can be tabulated and extrapolated to estimate how long it would take for the bone to be completely permineralized.
6. The final step is to draw biblically sound conclusions that are consistent with the specific statements and principles found in the Bible. Such conclusions must be drawn with humility and prayer understanding that “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter” (Proverbs 25:2).

Overman (2021) provides an example of an application of the biblical scientific method using the work performed by Dr. Russell Humphreys on planetary magnetic fields.

The Role of Miracles in Biblically Based Knowledge (Science)

The Creation Research Society’s statement of faith begins with “The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs” (Creation Research Society 2022). Hence, the Bible provides an authoritative source of information for scientific studies. This source material is in the form of descriptions of divine works and other events that occurred in the past. “If God designed his laws to accomplish his purposes, why should we see him as being in competition with those laws, so that we have to choose between God’s activities and natural laws as somehow rival explanations?” (Ratzsch 2000, 106).

In many cases, how God performed a miracle may not be discernable. But the miracle may leave effects that can be studied. Looking at the Humphries example on magnetic fields (Overman 2021), the magnetic fields are the effects of the miracle that Humphries studied.

“Things that unaided nature could not or would not produce and in whose production finite agents (humans, aliens, whatever) played some role we classify as artifacts” (Ratzsch 2000, 112).

Whenever humans, aliens or other finite beings act to produce artifacts (or design), marks of that activity—counterflow marks—are left on the world somewhere or other. Since counterflow marks are exactly those that cannot or would not be produced by nature, counterflow is inescapably linked to gaps in the normal flow of nature. . . . Gap-based inferences are foundational to our identification of artifacts as products of agent activity and in the case of human and alien activity are unproblematically legitimate. If there is something nature could not or would not produce unaided, yet there it is right in front of us, it follows that something else—a human, alien, or other agent—was involved in its production. (Ratzsch 2000, 114)

Miracles have been categorized into grade A, which seem to involve the suspension of physical processes or grade B in which God directs physical processes (Morris 1993, 81). These miracles with their accompanying artifacts and counterflow marks are evidence of designedness. “Our recognition of finite designedness (design of finite agents) typically begins with a recognition of artifactuality, itself in turn based on a recognition of counterflow marks” (Ratzsch 2000, 114–115).

The Bible tells us in Ecclesiastes 3:1 “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” Our Creator God is a purposeful God. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that any grade A or grade B miracles He performs are done for a reason.

Sometimes the agents producing an artifact have had some particular purpose in producing it, and we are able to tell what that purpose was from investigation of the artifact. . . .

In other cases, while we might be unable to discover what the purpose actually was, we might nonetheless be able to tell that there was some purpose or other and that the artifact in question was indeed intentionally generated. . . .

Of course, there is no guarantee that we can always identify design, always recognize designedness or always recognize artifactuality and counterflow. (Ratzsch 2000, 115–116)

Hence, the regenerate scientist can apply the possibility of either grade A or grade B miracles as part of a maxi-theory, a mini-theory, or a hypothesis. The key is to identify the purpose, artifact, or counterflow of the miracle.

The creation science community has a lot of work to do to fully develop the use of miracles in biblical science. However, Rinehart proposed the use of “Theodynamic Operators” (Rinehart 2020). In essence theodynamic operators are the miraculous acts God performs. When performing a grade A or grade B miracle, God is taking some action for which Rinehart uses the symbol Θ_Δ. This action produces a change in nature or has an effect on nature as represented by eq. 1. Eq. 1 is shown as in Rinehart’s paper but is not intended to be a mathematical operation. The interpretation is that the uncreated Trinity (T_U) takes some action (Θ_Δ) (that is, a miracle) which then has an either temporary or permanent effect (ΔΣ_N) on the natural system. We can, then, study the effects of those changes and postulate the action that was taken by the Trinity. This provides a logical framework for incorporating miracles into our investigations.

where:

T_U = Uncreated Trinity

Θ_Δ = Theodynamic Operator

ΔΣ_N = Change in a natural system produced by the divine power of the action.

We can refine Rinehart’s model to separate Θ_Δ into two terms. This gives eq. 2.

We shall use Θ_ΔA to represent grade A miracles and Θ_ΔB to represent grade B miracles. Using the biblical scientific method, if we think from Scripture that a miracle is involved, we postulate what the miracle was and the effects of that miracle. We can then look at God’s creation for artifacts and counter marks and refine our studies. Again, Humphreys’ work is an example. The grade A miracle was the creation of water with the atomic spins in line. Humphreys postulated the effects and compared that to known data. He then hypothesized into the unknown and used Voyager II data for confirmation (Humphreys 1984, 1990).

Sometimes that change in nature is permanent, sometimes it is temporary. Our goal in biblically based science is to understand the effect of the change that the miracle brought and apply that understanding to the theoretical and applied sciences. In summary, we can scientifically study miracles by identifying the unknowns that could be miracles. Classify them as grade A or B, identify the effects caused by the miracle, quantify the effects if practicable, then make scientific hypotheses and analyses to evaluate both the miracle and its effects.

Building Creation Models

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events, or processes. What follows is an early creation model proposed by Henry Morris (Morris 1980, ii). This model is presented as a starting point to illustrate a maxi theory that can be refined, discarded, or built upon.

1. Completed supernaturalistic origin.
2. Net present decrease in complexity.
3. Earth geology dominated by catastrophism.

From a biblical creation perspective, the first 11 chapters of Genesis provide the biblical creation model. Genesis chapter 1 provides the overall description of what God did during the six day Creation week. By the end of the Creation week, everything that needed to be created has been created. This portion of the model is depicted in fig. 1.

The second part of the biblical creation model, as identified by Morris, is a “net present decrease in complexity.” Genesis 1:31 says that “God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” In Morris’ creation model, this is interpreted to indicate perfection in God’s creation. All the animals as well as Adam and Eve were given “every green herb for meat [food]” (Genesis 1:29–30) indicating that carnivory did not exist and there was no death. This is also interpreted to mean that the whole of creation was perfectly in order at the end of the Creation week.

Six times before in this chapter, God had adjudged His work to be “good.” Now, after completing everything (even the “host of heaven”—see 2:1), He declared it all to be “exceedingly good” (literal meaning of the Hebrew word rendered “very.” (Morris 2012, 14, commentary on Genesis1:31)

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that natural processes can neither create nor destroy mass-energy (mass-energy interchange can occur according to E = mc², but the total remains the same). But the Second Law states that the amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum. If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever. Otherwise, it would already have exhausted all usable energy – the “heat death” of the universe. (Sarfati 2015, 97, emphasis original)

Morris’ model is one where God is thought to have created everything and “started” the clock. There is debate in the creation science community as to exactly when or if God “started the clock.” Morris (2012) contends that the statement that God ended His work in Genesis 2:2 is the starting point, “This statement of completed creation anticipated the modern scientific laws of thermodynamics. The First Law states essentially the same truth: the universe is not now being created but is being conserved with neither matter nor energy being created or destroyed” (Morris 2012, 15, commentary on Genesis 2:2). Sarfati draws a distinction between entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and disorder. “Rather than postulate that the Second Law began at the Fall, it is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power at that time” (Sarfati 2015, 395). This is an example of evaluation and discussion of a maxi theory. Furthermore, the starting the clock analogy could suggest the deistic view that God created the universe and then let it run on its own. However, the Bible indicates that God is constantly involved in upholding the present universe (for example, Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17).

The third part of Morris’s model is “Earth [geology] dominated by catastrophism.” Biblically, this is primarily the global flood described in Genesis chapters 7–9. While this is primarily of interest to the geological community, it may also have effects on plants and animals that the biological community can study. The astronomical community may also consider possible ramifications in that some of God’s work during that time may have been universal.

What Morris proposed may work as a general model. It was earlier discussed that each of the four scientific communities (physics, astronomy, geology, and biology) identify maxi and mini theories. This biblical model provides a starting point for, at least, the development of maxi theories. The physics community may be more “mature” in this area, in that, each of the phenomena that have been classified as “Physical Laws” can be considered a maxi-theory upon which mini-theories can be built. Each scientific community will need to develop their own maxi-theories.

Morris’s biblical model states that “Earth [geology is] dominated by catastrophism.” This can lead to several maxi-theories like residual catastrophism (Snelling 2018), Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) (Baumgardner 1994), and Larry Vardiman’s hypercane theory (Vardiman 2003). Each of these maxi-theories will spawn mini-theories that can be studied. As these maxi and mini theories are studied some will be strengthened and some will be weakened.

For example, Whitcomb and Morris state “But if we accept the Biblical testimony concerning an antediluvian canopy of waters (Gen. 1:6–8, 7:11, 8:2, 2 Peter 3:5–7), we have an adequate source of the waters of a universal Flood” (Whitcomb and Morris 1961, 77). This would lead to a maxi-theory that a vapor canopy provided sufficient water for a universal flood. Rush and Vardiman studied this maxi-theory and found that if a vapor canopy held enough water to provide 40 days of torrential rain, the temperatures on earth would be too high to sustain life (Rush and Vardiman 1990). Hence, the Rush-Vardiman study weakened the vapor canopy maxi-theory. Subsequent studies, (Vardiman and Bousselot 1998 and Vardiman 2003), further weakened the vapor canopy maxi-theory to the point that it is no longer generally accepted in the creation science community.

A more rigorous application of this model, maxi-theory, and mini-theory approach by each of the creation science communities has the potential to strengthen the application of biblical scientific studies.

Conclusion

The scientific community can be bifurcated into regenerate and non-regenerate scientists. Regenerate scientists have put their faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, while non-regenerate scientists have not. Any attempt to reconcile the worldviews of both groups is folly. Regenerate scientists can learn from the non-regenerate scientific community, but that learned knowledge will only go so far. Therefore, it is unproductive, from a scientific perspective to try to reconcile nature-god evolution and the Bible. It cannot be done without assaulting either and typically, the Bible is the one that is assaulted.

Creation scientists should, therefore, develop a biblically based scientific philosophy and methodology. This paper proposes that the four broad scientific communities of physics, astronomy, biology, and geology deliberately and consciously develop a biblically based model, maxi-theory, mini-theory structure to guide the continued scientific study within that community. Such a structure will aid in the understanding of the already-developed body of knowledge, the gaps in that body of knowledge, and the development of proposed studies to close those gaps.

The regenerate biblical scientist has access to three levels of knowledge, inherent, learned, and divine. The third being available through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who aids in interpreting God’s Word and can provide divine inspiration. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit gives the regenerate scientist an advantage that can and should be used to understand God’s creation more fully. This is facilitated when the regenerate scientist has worshipping God as their primary motivation for performing their scientific work.