Have you ever heard of any of the following statements? Maybe you said one of them yourself. We have listened to such and such claims for years – but they are all wrong or at the very least imply falsehood.
Common Atheist or Non-Christian Claims:
- Science has proven that the Bible is wrong.
- Evolution is a science, but the Bible is a religion.
- Evolutionists believe in science, while creationists reject science.
Common Christian claims:
- I trust the Bible above science.
- Creation is a religion, but evolution is also a religion.
- Creationists believe in the Bible and reject science.
The biblical account of the beginnings cannot be tested in the laboratory, and so secular scholars – and even some Christians – believe that this is not a science and must be classified as a religion.
Secular scientists claim that their view of beginnings (evolution) can be tested in the laboratory so that their view is scientific. For example, they indicate mutated fruit flies or speciation (the formation of new and prominent species) observed in the field (such as new species of mosquitoes or fish).
But what really confuses people is the very notion of “science” and “scientific.”
It is useful to distinguish between operational science and origin science, and compare how each seeks to discover the truth.
Before debating whether the Bible or evolution is scientific, we must learn to ask the question, “Can you please define what you mean by science?” The answer usually reveals where the real problem lies.
Defining science
Humans are generally uninformed that dictionaries give root to the meaning or etymology of science, as we say in Webster: “from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens’ to have knowledge ‘, from the present participle sci- ences’ to know.”
Most dictionaries give the following meaning to this word: “state of knowledge: knowledge as a difference from ignorance and misunderstanding.”
Although there are other uses of this word, the root of the meaning of science is basically “knowledge.” In fact, in the past, philosophy and theology were considered science, and theology was even called the “queen of science.”
But for the past 200 years, during the so-called Scientific revolutions, the word science has assumed the meaning of the method of knowing, the way of discovering the truth. In addition, many people assume that modern science is the only way to discover the truth.
To help clear up the confusion, we find it useful to differentiate between the two types of modern science and compare how each one seeks to uncover the truth:
- Operational science uses the so-called The “scientific method” in trying to discover the truth by conducting observational, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of repetitive behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the laboratory or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has led to the emergence of computers, spacecraft, or the treatment of disease.
- Origin science tries to find out the truth by examining reliable eyewitness accounts (if available), and circumstantial evidence such as pottery, fossils, canyons. Since the past cannot be viewed directly, assumptions greatly influence how scientists interpret what they see. For example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Is it formed gradually over long periods of time with little water, or is it formed rapidly with lots of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions about slight changes over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid changes during Noah’s Flood.
Can creationists be "real" scientists?
Both creationist scientists and evolutionist scientists have religious components of their scientific models of origin. However, both types of scientists are equally capable of dealing with both operational science and origin science.
Operational science, whether evolutionary or creationist, has brought many benefits to humanity, especially through technology. Creationists make major contributions to this field of science, including nineteenth-century physicists Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell, and more recently Dr. Raymond Damadian, who invented MRIs used by medical doctors.
In the science of denial, creationists discovered many things to the glory of the Creator’s wisdom and validated biblical history.
The nature of the debate between creationists and evolutionists
At this point, many realize that the debate is not about operational science, which is based on the present. The debate is about the science of origin and conflicting assumptions, or beliefs, about the past.
The evolution of “from molecules to man” is a belief about the past. It assumes, without observation, that natural processes and time are sufficient to explain the origin and diversification of life.
Of course evolutionist scientists can test their interpretations using operative science. For example, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation – observed today. Creationists make the same observations, but they recognize that these changes are limited and that no change from one species to another has ever been observed.
Until recently, many geologists have used studies of ongoing river erosion and sedimentation to explain how sedimentary layers of rocks have been formed or slowly eroded over millions of years. However, over the past two decades, even secular geologists have begun to acknowledge that catastrophic processes are a better explanation for many of the earth’s rocky layers.
Also during this time, creationist geologists identified evidence showing that the catastrophic formation of most rocks occurred during the unique Global Flood in Noah’s time.
These contemporary observations help us consider the possible causes of past events, such as the formation of the Grand Canyon. But operative science cannot tell us with certainty what really happened in the past.
After explaining these two types of science, people usually begin to recognize potential problems in the statement “evolution is science, but the Bible is religion.” The evolution of “from molecules to man” is not proven by operational science; instead, it is a belief about the past based on antibiblical assumptions.
The Bible, by contrast, is the testimony of the Eyewitness Creator, who tells us what happened to the creation of the Earth, different types of life, fossils, rock layers, and the entire universe. The Bible gives us a true, “big picture” of the initial assumptions for origin science.
Different histories
Thus creationists and evolutionists develop completely different reconstructions of history. But they accept and use the same research methods in both operational and origin science. Different conclusions about the origin arise from different initial assumptions, not from the research methods themselves.
Thus the battle between the Bible and the evolution of “from molecules to man” is not a conflict between religion and science. It is rather a conflict between different worldviews – creationist initial assumptions (biblical viewpoint) and evolutionary initial assumptions (anti-biblical viewpoint).
That is why when one invokes science in the face of creation or evolution, it is always good to ask him first to define what he means by science. Only then can you begin a fruitful discussion about the origin.
Proving facts
Let’s be clear. The exact knowledge (truth) about physical reality can be revealed by the methods of both operational science and science and origin. But claiming the truth in both areas can be false. Many “proven facts” (assumed truth statements) about how things work (in physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.), as well as origin issues (in biology, geology, astronomy, etc.) have proven or will be as false. So the best we can do is be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 and test every claim with Scripture, searching for distorted logic or false assumptions.
Which world view is correct?
There are many ways to test the accuracy of the biblical worldview versus the view of naturalistic atheism (the view that controls most origin research). When our research is based on biblical truths about the past, we find that our interpretations of biological and geological facts are meaningful in relation to what we see in the real world, while evolutionist interpretations do not fit in with what we see.
Let’s look at one example. The Bible says that God created different groups of animals “in their own kind” (more specifically prototypes). Beginning with this biblical truth as our assumption, we would expect to see animals divided into different groups or species. The creationist postulate is that God has put phenomenal variability in the genes of each species, so that there can be significant diversity within each species. But a pre-programmed mechanism for variation within a given species can never change one species into another different species, as evolutionists claim, and their belief system requires.