Outline of this page:

• Intro:  Important. It is just the one paragraph right after this outline
• Group 1:  Quick highlight several things the Bible recorded that scientists did not discover until hundreds or even thousands of years later.  Read this group and then scan the “Topics” in Groups 2 & 3 to see which ones interest you most.
• Group 2 (has 2 topics):  Topics with moral and compassionate needs.  The science is often neglected in public and private discussions on these topics.
• Group 3 (has 2 topics):  Topics typically focused on the science, but the debates and progress may be hindered by artificial boundaries.
• Concluding Thoughts and Summary Question

Intro
Science (i.e. the people doing the science and the resulting hypotheses, theories, etc.) and the Bible address different questions, but where the Bible touches the natural world, they mostly remarkably complement each other, not contradict.  Furthermore, on the topics of science in the Bible, they were actually recorded in the scripture long before scientists figured them out.  Unlike what most people think, the Bible really covers very little science.  Of the 1,200 pages of an average sized Bible, if you put all the science items together, they would probably fill 2-3 pages.  The Bible is mostly about relationships between us, God and other people.  The little science mentioned is not there for the purpose of the science, but to show that God and His truths are immeasurably more loving, wise and powerful than ours.  It should not be surprising that this is the longest topic on our site since “science” is huge considering it covers biology, nature, psychology, etc.  But we only cover the areas where the Bible has something to say about them.  And, even in those areas, we are only highlighting the key arguments to show the Bible and science complement each other.  We do not try to explore “all science” in those topics since the Bible does not attempt to because that outside the scope of its purpose.

First Group:  Examples of where established science and the Bible are in alignment, but the Bible reference was written before mankind observed the evidence or made the claim.  Did mankind search for evidence because of what the Bible says?  Some of the founding fathers of modern science were driven by what they found in scripture to explore scientific topics.

Either way, 1) the Bible and science are clearly not in conflict on these items in group 1, and 2) it is very important to understand that the Bible documented these things in scripture about 2,500-3,500 years ago – hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before mankind did.  This adds solid credibility to the areas the Bible touches on science.  This was only possible because God told the writers what to record, not that they gathered the evidence.

• The earth is round:  Isaiah 40:22 describes the Earth as a ‘circle.’ Isaiah lived around 700 BC, centuries before Greek philosophers developed increasingly sophisticated ideas about the Earth’s shape.
• The earth hangs on nothing:  The Bible says in Job 26:7 that God hung the earth ‘on nothing’.  Job is difficult to date precisely. Traditional Jewish sources associate it with the time of Moses (~1300 BC), while some historical clues (mention of Chaldeans and Sabeans) have led others to place it around ~900 BC.  Astronomers established Earth as a body suspended in space (Anaximander about 550BC).  Before Anaximander, most thought it was held up by something.
• The expanding universe:  The Bible says in Isaiah 45:12 that God stretched out the heavens.  That was thousands of years before (Isaiah around 700BC) modern science discovered the expanding universe (1920s AD).  That ancient imagery is strikingly consistent with the modern discovery that the universe is expanding.
• The “countless” stars:  The Bible indicates in Genesis 22:17 (Moses around 1,300BC) that the stars in the Heavens are countless by comparing them to the sands on the seashore.  This was also thousands of years before mankind had the technology (Galileo 1610AD) that enabled us to see more than what could be seen with our unassisted eyesight.
• The beginning of time, space and matter:  The Bible says in Genesis 1 that “In the beginning” … “God created…” (Moses around 1,300BC).  That was written thousands of years before science came to believe that “time, space and matter” came into existence at the Big Bang (late 1920sAD).  Science still has open questions on some details on this complex subject, but what the Bible said over 3,000 years earlier have now been found by science.  As with the others items in this list, the writers had no way of knowing this.  But God knew and gave us these details about what He did so that when we discovered them, we have even more evidence about how much more He knows than us.  When Einstein created the cosmological constant, he was operating according to the prevailing naturalistic scientific view that expected a static universe.  His original equations had pointed toward a changing universe and he might have continued to probe that more if he considered that the Bible says God stretched the universe.  It is a useful reminder that even brilliant scientists can be influenced by assumptions about what the answer is supposed to look like.  He eventually admitted that his cosmological constant was the biggest blunder of his life.  How many cosmological-constant-type blunders are currently delaying scientific progress?  And that question applies equally to Creationists.  What evidence might they be resisting because it doesn’t fit what we already believe the Bible must mean (see the thoughts below on how time dilation “may” impact the definition of a day).

Some notes for items in these three groups:

• People that do not accept that God would provide info to writers ahead of time (prophesies) will deny who actually wrote these items and attribute to later writers.  Their denials are disputed do not make their alternatives true.
• The Bible is not intended to be a science book and yet God correctly documented all of these things which were intended to show the majesty of God.  And some of them were completely unobservable at the time.  Most of the items were written about 2,500 – 3,500 years ago.  At that time, mankind did not have the observable evidence to these things.  On some of them, the writers may not have grasped what God meant.
• At the time of these writings, mankind mostly thought that things had just always been as they saw them.  For example, that plants, sea life, animals, etc. had just always been there.  They had no data about how large our universe was or that it was expanding rapidly.  Early writers did not yet realize that we were not the center of all they saw when they looked into the sky.  As far as they knew, the Earth was stationary and things moved around it.  Yet, the writers of the Bible, who were religious scholars, not scientists, made these statements because that is what God guided them to do.

Second Group:  Topics where science and the Bible touch on moral and philosophical issues and so a compassionate preface is required:
This section requires an important preface because it involves topics where mankind has mixed science, moral and philosophical information.  Once a person realizes that they have taken positions contrary to science and God, they need to understand that God KNOWS we will mess up.  And like a loving and wise parent, He lets His children know that we are unconditionally loved even when we mess up.  All that God asks is that we acknowledge our mistakes and determine to try to trust Him going forward.  So, here is an important preface on a central Christian concept that applies to these two topics — God separates “behaviors” from “people”.  In other words, God may condemn a behavior, but still desires to draw the person to Himself in love.  That is because love understands some behaviors need to be confronted for the good of the person.  This is the same as any loving and wise parent would do.  Also, remember that Jesus died on the cross to take away all condemnation for these behaviors for those that have decided to trust Him.  Without a doubt, if you’ve struggled with any of these personally, that does not put you beyond God’s love or forgiveness.

Note that the scientific evidence is often different than the public discussion talking points.  When science allows this on these two topics, there is reduced credibility for science and confusion in the public.

First Topic:  When does life begin:
Reminder, if you decide at some point in time that you made a huge mistake on this topic, remember that Jesus died for all our sins. What God is looking for is a change of heart in our beliefs.  If you decide that you were wrong in what you did and that you will not do it again, Jesus gave His life on the cross for you and you are now whole with God.  God wants to build a fully loving and safe relationship with you.  Here are very important science facts.

At conception, when that first cell has completed its formation including that first strand of DNA, that is baby’s first cell and is always different DNA than mom.  At conception, a new human begins developing with its own genetic makeup, distinct from the mother’s.

Once conception has occurred, all baby needs to grow and develop is food and shelter.  Mommy’s body provides the environment and resources necessary for the early stages of development in the baby’s life, but baby is clearly not a part of mommy. Some people call this new human “baby” while others want to just say it is cells forming.  God knows this child and has a plan for it.  Those that want to leave opportunity for ending this life can determine their thoughts before God and what He told us in Romans 1.

Some people don’t want their baby and society has come up with some “reasons” to allow mom to end baby’s life.  Note that God does not agree with any of these mankind “reasons”.  Here are the most common:

• Heartbeat (or other embryo development indicator):  Some will pick a pre-fetus status and say that baby has not yet met the criteria.  But all these embryo developments are just part of the journey of development of this new human, not something that makes them human.
• Viability:  The definition for viability is usually tied to when baby could survive outside the womb if baby continues to receive food and shelter.  But viability is just another stage of development and not a change from a non-unique human to suddenly becoming human.
• Personhood:  The definition of this varies across science, government, society, etc.  But, it is usually some form of conscious awareness.  Sometimes a person needs to be put into induced coma for medical purposes.  They have not lost their personhood, they just need to complete a process.  Before baby reaches its first consciousness, they are just earlier in the normal human development process.
• Ability (or disability):  Some decide that certain levels of disability discovered while in the womb (or even after birth by some) disqualifies a baby from being valuable enough and approve of ending babies life.  Interestingly enough, sometimes having a child with a disability in the family matures siblings faster as they learn how to be a part of caring, others focused family.
• Birth:  Some allow mommy to decide to end baby’s life all the way up to just before birth — or later…
• Attachment:  While rare today, there have been societies in the past and likely still today in some countries where mommy or daddy can decide shortly after birth that they don’t want baby and there are procedures to end baby’s life.

To summarize:  At conception, baby is clearly a new and unique human that just needs food and shelter to grow.  Food and shelter is what they will need the full 9 months in the womb and throughout the their life to thrive.  Everything else adds or takes away from the quality of life.  Some moms sing to their baby, talk in a gentle voice or rub their baby by rubbing their own belly.  Blessed are those children who have such moms because she is probably going to nurture her child as long as she can.

So, every abortion is preceded by a discussion between a mom and her doctor.  But that conversation is ALWAYS about the unique human life that is developing and growing through the natural stages of human development.  They are nurtured and protected by mommy, but not part of her body.  If young children are around, mommy will talk about the baby “in her” and that is a correct description.  People can create laws or make judgements that baby is not distinct person in development at conception, but that doesn’t change the fact they are a distinct human in development.

Some additional info:  Just after 3 weeks past conception, mom may not even know she is pregnant yet, but her baby has its own blood circulating with a blood type which can easily be different from the mother.  Signs of the still developing heart around week 6 are early versions of a heartbeat.  In weeks 5-8, all the major organs are forming.  That is why the scientific name for baby’s development changes from embryo to fetus around the end of week 8 or 9.  Some women have been reassured that at this stage it is “just a blob of cells” or simply part of the mother’s body. But that language leaves out important information about what is already developing.  When does life begin is an example of a topic where people that say “science is real” suddenly do not want to talk about the science.  Technically, a human baby is still not viable even months after birth.  For example, some animals, such as horses, giraffes, ducks and turtles, start walking and eating in minutes or hours after birth.  But a human baby is completely dependent on others for food and shelter for months.  Viability, personhood, ability, etc. are completely inadequate ways of determining if baby is human.

• Jeremiah 1:5  “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
• Psalms 139:13  For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.
• Romans 9:11-13 [God “knew” Jacob and Esau before they were born]

Second topic:  Behaviors God says are unnatural:
The key concept here is “What is natural?”  Brain biology, and some other body biology to a lesser extent, can be impacted by various factors that cause body components to develop in ways different than normally expected.  When it occurs, it is usually during key developmental times in the womb.  These sometimes lead to tendencies towards behaviors that God says are not natural.  But culture reacts differently towards some of these behaviors than it does to others.  On some of the behaviors such as tendencies towards alcoholism and patterns of extreme anger, culture tries to help people learn to manage and move away from these behaviors.  But culture celebrates some other behaviors God says are not natural (Romans 1).  Science has not found any of these behaviors to be triggered by a single biology variant.  Instead, they are usually triggered by a combination of multiple biology variations and often society pressures.  It is clear that there is no clearly predictable cause for these behaviors.  “What if” God is right about behaviors different than His design and celebrating these behaviors actually leads to a less joyful life in the long run.  Former alcoholics would tell you it is true for them.  The following three examples are all different biologically, but are all the same in that they are examples of when our biology strays the normal patterns of development:

• Alcoholism:  ADH1B gene, ALDH2 gene, DRD2 gene, GABA neurotransmitters.
• Extreme anger patterns:  Amygdala-Prefrontal Cortex regulators, serotonin and dopamine activity, testosterone, cortisol, and adrenaline levels.
• Gender and Sexual — orientations and behaviors:  Prenatal levels of androgen, testosterone and estrogen exposure, brain INAH3 size, right/left brain symmetry or asymmetry, cortical white matter pathways.
• Science has not found a clearly decisive biology configuration for these three example behaviors.  Furthermore, let’s say that a clear biology configuration was found for alcoholism, another configuration was found for extreme anger patterns, and another was found for gender and sexual orientations.  Would we start celebrating alcoholic and extreme anger lifestyles or would we say that that these are the result of biology variants that sometimes occur during fetal development that are not natural?

So, individuals and societies can make moral choices on these behaviors, but God is clear on all of them being not natural.  He says they are not according to His design.  This world is a temporary place where sin and corruption come into action and God allows that so we can see what rejecting His ways leads to.  Science has not established a single cause or biological configuration that determines sexual orientation. Yet public discussion can easily leave people with the impression that science has answered much more than it actually has.  And even if science eventually identifies strong biological influences, that would answer a biological question—not the moral question of whether every biologically influenced tendency should be acted upon.  That is problematic for the reputation of science and may be causing more strife in public debate and individual’s decisions and emotions than they realize.  The strife and pain of “apparent” scientific support might be similar to the abortion topic.  Both cause turmoil due to the lack of key information for people making decisions.  It also leads to conflicting messaging the culture and messaging they hear about from God in many major religions.  Again, if you struggle with some behaviors that God condemns, you may never fully conquer that behavior.  But God is looking for you to agree with Him that you need to be doing what you can to move away from that behavior and He is there to help you.  For example, if you have a biological propensity towards alcoholism, you may always struggle with that, but God wants to help you with it if you will lean on Him.  Other behaviors that God says are wrong are similar.  One other note is that there are people that “try” to explain away what the Bible clearly says about these behaviors that our culture today supports.  Those people fall under the Romans 1:32 criteria as the scripture is quite clear on them.

Third Group: Topics that require careful examination of the evidence, both in the Bible and in the scientific data.
In reality, both of the two topics in this group are related and you will see that.  Also, in these two topics, both Christian and secular scientists are not good at admitting there are areas where their frameworks have important weaknesses (gaps) and they don’t want to admit that the other side has a better explanation considering the data we have today.

This group covers two topics where healthy debate is still needed because the risk of excluding potential answers to the open questions could be far reaching.  For example, as noted earlier, Einstein created the cosmological constant because that supported the prevailing expectation of a static universe.  What if he had considered that the Bible said God stretched the universe – would he have pursued more what the data was telling him?  How much was scientific progress delayed because of that… Science has taught us quite a bit about how the universe and life work. But discovering how something works is not necessarily the same as explaining how it ultimately originated, why it exists, how to address gaps in understanding of expected data, or whether a naturalistic explanation is the only possible explanation or even the best explanation considering the actual facts we have found.  Why is God automatically excluded from consideration when naturalistic explanations are themselves incomplete?  Earlier in the development of modern science, it could be said that some of the fathers gave up too soon and missed out on some naturalistic explanations that were found later.  Since then, science has filled in quite a bit of what was not known.  There are places where science has excellent evidence, places where science has strong inference, and some important places where science is still searching for an explanation for the gaps in understanding and/or evidence (e.g. first life, origin of DNA, fine-tuning of the universe, dark matter, and dark energy).  Some of those are in areas where God says He acted.

First topic in this group:  The age of the Earth and Universe.
Of all the topics, this is the one we have not seen satisfactorily addressed elsewhere.  We are not clear on all the possible implications of time dilation.  But the most interesting question is what happened during and after the Big Bang.  The possibility that time dilation might mean that the Genesis 1 account and the old universe/earth may be possible at the same time.  It is an intriguing possibility worth exploring.  It is intriguing because, if it is true, it might help explain other things or find some practical application. Note that we are not trying to differentiate here between the movement of the galaxies (including their stars and planets) and the cosmic expansion carrying those galaxies.  It is likely that the galaxies are relatively static in their local space and are moving away from us mostly, or even entirely, because of cosmic expansion.  God says that He stretched the universe.  Is it possible that the stretching of the universe has a time dilation impact on what we observe?  We don’t “know”.  But, if so, the universe might appear to be very young from one perspective (God’s – 6 days) and very old from a different perspective (ours – billions of years).  That would display His majesty by creating something larger than we could imagine and do so quickly.  And we will see in the second topic in this group that God also displays His majesty at the other end of the size scale that includes the amazing complexity inside cells.  In the conclusion section of this page, the question will be asked about perspective on the fact that science feels good about having figured out “how many things work”.  But God is saying that He is the one that “designed and implemented” these things including the fine-tuning laws that their design requires.

We know from modern science that this expansion (stretching) continues today.  This is an opportunity for theologians to consider if time dilation should impact their understanding of the Bible using the words “day”, “evening and morning” in the Creation account.  It is similar to the need to explore Revelation (and other) references to “day and night, forever and ever” considering that time and night did not exist before Creation and will not exist in eternity future (Revelation 21:23-25).  Since the universe is still stretching at super high speeds, it might relate to other things in the Bible such as when it talks about how they will “come quickly / soon”.  It could mean that these things seem slow to us now, but they are quick to God and will be to us also when we get to Heaven and look back on this time on earth.

So, some may not be interested in reconciling the Creation account in the Bible to what we see in this universe and they are free to do so.  But not doing so could mean not discovering some things such as the full scope of impacts of things like time dilation.

Second Topic in the group:  “Macro”-evolution:
For purposes of this discussion, we are using “macro-evolution” as specific focus on the origin of major new body plans at higher taxonomic levels such as families and phyla and “micro-evolution” for changes in the lower taxonomy levels.  Central to macro-evolution is the core process of slow changes from random positive mutations over time with multiple, often complex inter-related body plan changes are often required for a new phyla member or even new family member.  Note that most discussions on evolution present fossil evidence that supports micro-evolution.  So, fossil changes within a species is not an example of macro-evolution.  Here are some of the problems for macro-evolution:

• There are several important things that naturalistic evolutionists need to acknowledge.  Things where we see a result, but mostly lack some important evidence for how they happened.  Examples include First Life and the creation of DNA.  Again, the context here is macro-evolution in short bursts at the phyla level such as the Cambrian, not micro-evolution of new species.  But we are going to focus on the actual bursting emergence of the multiple major body plans at multiple times in the fossil record which is at the heart of macro-evolution.  Two things are required for macro-evolution at each stage of “intermediary forms”.
• First:  Slow change over time evolution requires multiple positive mutations at these taxonomy levels (e.g. new body plans at phyla level), to successfully integrate with other body plan components which multiplies the time required.  In other words, if a new mutation happens to be something that is potentially useful, but it doesn’t integrate effectively with other body plan components such as DNA, gene regulatory networks, and factory components that do things like energy production, transport and replication, it likely will not survive.  Then, looking at all the new family, phyla, etc. during the Cambrian and similar (e.g. GOBE), the time requirements could become extraordinarily large as multiple coordinated changes are required.  Then add in the 5 major extinctions since the Cambrian.  Looking at all that we see today coming from “slow changes over time” from the rare number of “successful body plan changing level mutations” and we have what seems like a problem for the modern evolutionary framework.
• Second:  Again, with the focus on macro-evolution, if major body plans arose through a long sequence of intermediate evolutionary changes, we should ask what fossil evidence that process ought to leave behind and whether the existing record provides the expected evidence.  Regarding the number of new top-level phylum and class members in the large bursts: There is “some” partial fossil evidence of intermediary body plans, but it seems fair to say there are significant gaps in what would be expected to be found for intermediary forms for new phyla and family top level members in the macro-evolution bursts.  This is because new phyla and family top level members have complex full plan mutation requirements.  That leaves a question of whether or not the modern evolutionary framework adequately answers what happened in the Cambrian Explosion (new Phyla) and the Great Ordovician Biodiversity Event (new families).  That is why they got names like “explosion” or “great event”.  Note that science has documented, for example, that the new phyla in the Cambrian appeared quickly at the beginning of the Cambrian and the changes flat-lined the rest of the Cambrian.  Some say that “quickly” still covers millions of years.  But The Cambrian represents an unusually rapid and broad diversification of major animal body plans. Evolutionary biology has proposed mechanisms and has “some” supporting evidence.  But questions remain concerning the timing, mechanisms, regulatory changes, environmental triggers, and incomplete Precambrian and Cambrian fossil record. Those open questions should be represented as critical unanswered questions rather than treated as though a strong historical pathway has been demonstrated.
• Summary:  Darwin believed that future discoveries would provide additional evidence for his theory. More than 160 years later, biology has indeed uncovered notable amounts of evidence for evolution—but it has also revealed a level of cellular complexity and macro-evolution breadth and depth that Darwin could not have imagined.  When Darwin developed his theory, scientists had a very limited understanding of the complexity inside a cell or what we have since found in the fossil record. Cells were often described largely in terms of their ‘protoplasm.’ Today we know that even single cells are extraordinarily complex molecular factories.  That means the important question is not simply whether evolution has some evidence, but whether our current explanations adequately account for the origin and development of that complexity.  There are reasons speculated why the gaps exist, but the fact is that there are gaps in the evidence for the origin of First Life, the origin of DNA, and what we should be finding in the fossil record of intermediary body plans in support of macro-evolution during its most active times such as the Cambrian and GOBE.  Basically, we still don’t have the expected level of supporting evidence for some very important gaps in the naturalist model yet.  Maybe someday, but not yet.  As such, we should not be excluding frameworks that provide answers for such things as an old universe/earth that involve some outside intervention from a source that got all its other science right hundreds and even thousands of years before scientists found them.  A data source that spurred on some of the very credible founding fathers of modern science.

Concluding thoughts:  The second “concluding thought” is mostly about Group 3 topics, but the other three thoughts apply to both Group 2 & 3.

First and most important:  For these topics where there are gaps in the understanding of design and history, clear and unbiased evaluation of 1) what the Bible actually says, and 2) what is actually in the evidence is required to find the inference to the best explanation.  Common evidence examples include the fossil record, our biology (e.g. cell complexity), and the natural world (including on earth and elsewhere in the universe).

Both sides tend to spotlight problem areas of other frameworks and generously accept evidence and data with important gaps in their own frameworks.  The Bible doesn’t provide many details on the science notations it makes and so we need to be open to the idea that we may have misunderstood some of what it says.  Similarly, the clear gaps in the evidence for naturalistic only explanations of what we see in the universe and the fossil record need to be acknowledged.  For both sides, not being honest about the areas lacking clarity creates credibility issues that impedes progress on getting to the full truth.

Second:  Some messages for the 3 groups of scientists involved in this domain of discussions:

• Young Universe/Earth Creationists:
  • You have many ideas that have some level of support in what we find in the natural world.  But there are gaps.  If you want old universe/earth folks to admit their gaps, you need to do the same.
  • You can show that the Bible got much science right before science did and how that spurred on many of the fathers of modern science.
  • You can never be faulted for trusting in the literal words of the Bible.  But always be cautious.  Just like the other two groups should be, recognize that we are constantly learning more and sometimes that changes how we understand what we read.  For example, what if God told us He stretched the universe and we later learned about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and time dilation.  That is important because it is in the same Bible that has the words “evening and morning”.  God created time dilation in design and we need to consider what it means for how we understand what God did during Creation.  Also, is it relevant that God says in multiple places that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day???  In other words, there are things in the Bible that we don’t know how they tie into the Creation account.  Let’s be humble about that if we expect the same from Old Earth folks.
  • You may be right about the 6 days of Creation being a series of miracles and the evidences in nature that indicate large age are part of those miracles.  Note that the flood and the creation of all organisms in a few days would be miracles – not natural events.  The Bible says that Creation gives evidence of His majesty.  So, the more we attribute things to miracles and not seen in the evidence, the less Creation is giving evidence of His majesty to non-believers.  In reality, it is creating a far larger stumbling block.  Again, you may be right, but too bad that it is creating huge stumbling blocks because miracles are the only explanation for much of what we see in a Young Universe/Earth Framework.
• Old Universe/Earth Creationists:
  • There may be a framework here that bridges what we read in the Bible and what we find in the natural world.  Just don’t be too quick to write off what the Bible says (e.g. there was evening and morning the X day).  It just might help you solidify your framework.  Also, consider why God pointed out that He stretched the universe and also included time dilation in His design.
  • Two different sub-groups:
    • Theistic Evolution:  Your framework says that the naturalistic framework explains everything that happened and God guided those steps.  That basically means that there is nothing in the data to indicate God played a differentiating role that would give Him glory.  It also leaves you to explain the same gaps that are becoming increasingly problematic for naturalistic evolutionists.
    • Intelligent Design:  You see and address the gaps in the naturalistic framework that the Bible says it has the answer for such as the cause of the Big Bang, first life, dark matter, the fine-tuning of the universe, and bursts in body plans in the fossil records, etc.  The creation of “time” and “space” and “matter” is also actually in both the Bible and naturalistic science discussions.  Tying the Cambrian Explosion, GOBE, etc. to the items grouped in the Genesis 1 Creation account of “kinds” should be explored.  A layman’s guide to things like these could help spread support for including Old Universe/Earth Creationism in various forums.
  • The Bible only has about 3 pages of science in its approximately 1,200 pages.  And, with an asterisk on the age of the Universe/Earth and macro-evolution, the Bible got science completely correct long before scientists found them.  This is an undervalued talking point.  Also, it would be good to interject into conversations more often that the Bible has no intent to be a science textbook but only introduces scientific data when it is for highlighting the majesty of God.
• Naturalistic/materialistic processes only (do Theistic Evolutionists effectively belong in this camp?):
  • You have a passion to dive as deep as we are able to understand the data.  You also emphasize peer review.  That is admirable.  Right now, the Creationists don’t have as robust a peer review process and so there are sub-camps which reduces thoroughness and credibility.
  • Similar to Young Earth/Universe Creationists, unwillingness to admit there are important gaps in the naturalistic framework, creates a credibility issue.  Especially since the Bible directly addresses them.  Be careful not to demand a level of proof from Creationists that you do not demand from unresolved portions of your own framework. If indirect evidence and inference are legitimate in one framework, comparable evidence deserves fair consideration in competing frameworks.
  • Don’t be so quick to write off what is in the religious texts.  Remember that many founding fathers of modern science got quite a bit of inspiration from what they found there.
  • Note that it feels pretty good to have discovered many things about the “design” of the universe and biology.  But are you stepping back and asking how those designs were “created and implemented”?  By avoiding this, you may be missing out on some answers for some of your gaps in understanding.
  • Are you limiting your potential successes???  There is an important difference between 1) using methodological naturalism as a scientific method, and 2) concluding philosophically that natural causes are all that relevantly exist. The first is a practical limitation of scientific investigation; the second is a worldview claim.  Scientists quite properly accept some conclusions through strong indirect evidence even when the underlying entity or mechanism has not been directly identified. The question is whether indirect evidence and unresolved questions are evaluated by comparable standards across frameworks when the possible explanation challenges philosophical naturalism.  Consider that there might be important ramifications to “only considering what we can see and test”.  If the true answer to a key gap in understanding is actually theistic, not considering them would potentially deprive humanity of the benefits of having a more complete answer on the topic.  Also, not considering theistic answers, if they are the actual answer to a naturalistic gap, would leave science spinning on a topic unnecessarily because it will never allow the real answer into the discussion.  Ask yourself if you should be more curious and driven to explore the few things that God tells us He did since there are only a few and the evidence points towards when He does communicate on a topic, He is right (see Group 1 above again).
  • Note that you are also leaving out that all this may have purpose.  What if “time” and “space” really were created at the time of Big Bang…  What if there is a planned end…  What if all this has a purpose that makes sense of all the chaos we see in this world.
  • Good science explores important options.  Even within the “naturalistic only” dataset, we continually come across new data that redirects our understanding.  Being rigid in only accepting naturalistic answers and excluding a source that consistently got science right before science did isn’t really any more credible than Creationist only considering solutions that match current understanding of what the Bible says.  How many cosmological constant type blunders are currently delaying scientific progress…

Third concluding thought: Science needs to be consistent.  Science only accepts what it can observe (either directly or through inference).  As such, it does not touch topics like what happened before the Big Bang and what caused to Big Bang to initiate.  That would be fair enough if scientists were consistent on the requirement.  Scientists routinely distinguish between what has been directly demonstrated, what is strongly inferred from multiple lines of evidence, and what remains speculative. Those distinctions should be made consistently across competing frameworks (e.g. materialism, theism, etc.).  To be consistent:

• Science should not “rule out” things like God creating the universe if:
  1. It cannot prove God doesn’t exist.  Considering Group 1 on this page, it seems like we have more evidence for exploring theistic intervention than for exploring multi-verses which also cannot be proven.
  2. It doesn’t have a better answer for the unknowable questions such as what happened before the Big Bang and the fine-tuning of the universe
  3. The Bible consistently got science right before science did.
• Science should not “declare as true” the naturalistic materialism framework (i.e. the premise of no God) when the framework has critical gaps in evidence such as
  1. How we got First Life
  2. The creation of DNA and related body plan components.  Note that for both First Life and DNA/RNA, the few “small, partial” steps towards lab replication leverage significant scientist intervention.  Without this intervention, most of these partial steps would not have happened.
  3. Dark matter and dark energy.  We have strong observational evidence for the gravitational and expansion effects attributed to them, but their underlying physical nature remains unknown.  God says stretched out the Universe and is holding these things together — and He said so centuries before we even came to understand the need for dark matter / energy.
  4. The sudden macro-evolution bursts of so many new body forms / plans several times in history.  To be clear, theistic scientists believe in micro-evolution.  And they do not agree that the fossil record supports methodological naturalism for macro-evolution or is even the best answer considering the evidence we actually have available to us.

So it is an interesting question if ruling out God with the naturalistic only framework is another potential cosmological-constant type blunder.  Some of the early fathers of modern science made their progress because they believed the opposite.

We have only sampled of “gaps” in our knowledge.  Some like to accuse theists of proposing “a god of the gaps”.  But “maybe” God is the filler of those gaps and science is the one “filling gaps” for materialism.  We still have plenty of important gaps in the evidence for methodological naturalism.  Declaring it comprehensively supported by the evidence and excluding acts of God is setting higher standards for theistic frameworks.  Consider again the items in Group 1 declared by God before mankind even found them.

Final concluding thought:  Should a creator be in the discussion?  When people wanted to bring evolution into the schools and the Scopes Monkey Trial took place, a key argument was made.  They said paraphrased all ideas should be investigated and that truth will bubble to the top.  Some thoughts on that:

• Some scientists feel like there is no need for spending time on God since we have discovered so much about “design” in the universe and can therefore explain much of what we see.  But discovering and understanding design components is a small thing compared to the creation and implementation of those design components.  Also, there are very important design components that we see the results of or evidence for such as dark matter, dark energy, First Life and multiple macro-evolutionary bursts leading to multiple new families and phyla.  But we don’t have the needed evidence for them to be part of a complete theory.
• Scientists say they don’t want to talk about a creator because that cannot be tested.  But, they accept many things they cannot test because they feel they have “enough” indirect evidence.  It is true that we cannot test things God did related to the universe and the organisms on Earth.  But we have enough indirect evidence of God’s claims in a variety of things to say that it is not fair to exclude His claims while accepting untestable things that don’t require Him.  Science is inconsistent on level of proof required for potential answers to things not yet proven.  Maybe more will be discovered someday.  But, right now, it is a big faith step to accept that God is not relevant to the discussion.
• The Bible is about 1,200 pages long and 98+% of that is on relationships with science only being sprinkled in a few places to show the majesty of God.  So, if the Bible consistently got science right before science did and it has plausible answers for the unknowable questions, why is it rejected by some scientists instead of it being held out as a possible explanation?  If a scientist doesn’t find value in exploring potential explanations for the gaps, that is fine.  But they should not mock or claim a waste of resources when others disagree with the potential value.  It might be a waste of time… or it might open doors to understanding gaps that they are trying to close.  Especially from a source that documented answers before they could be observed.
• If an individual scientist or organization only wants to pursue things they can actually see and test, that is fine as long as they do so fairly and consistently.  But then they are potentially ruling out how something happened and that impacts the scope of their work and its potential benefit to our world.

Closing question:  What if the Bible is right in Psalms 19 that this complex and huge universe has purpose.  Understanding the universe is valuable to mankind, but missing its purpose would be like being in amazement at the props and costumes in a play and missing the story being told…  That would be sad…

Back to the FAQs