Actually, the Bible and science complement each other, not contradict each other.  Furthermore, on the topics of science in the Bible, they were actually given long before science 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.

Let’s cover these topics in 3 groups.  Then there will be some summary comments at the end.

First Group:  Examples of science in the Bible that the actual scientific facts are fairly clearly in alignment.  The obvious difference is how these things happened:

• The Bible says in Isaiah 40:22 that the earth is round.  That was written hundreds of years before modern science figured that out.  At the time, people thought the earth was flat.
• The Bible says in Job 26:7 that the earth hangs in space over nothing.  That was written thousands of years before modern science figured it out and some said it is supported by Atlas or by elephants or something like that.
• The Bible describes in Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 that the water cycle includes clouds, rain, rivers, evaporation, repeat.  The Bible described this hundreds of years before modern science figured it out.
• The Bible says in Isaiah 45:12 that God stretched out the Universe.  That was thousands of years before modern science discovered the expanding Universe.
• The Bible indicates in Genesis 22:17 that the stars in the Heavens are countless by comparing them to the sands on the seashore.  This was also thousands of years before science figured that out when technology enabled us to see more than what could be seen with our unassisted eyesight.
• The Bible indicates an ordering of Creation similar to the fossil record:  Vegetation, then fish, then birds, then land animals and finally mankind.  This was thousands of years before Darwin and there was no naturalistic reason at that time for them to think other than things had just always been.  More on the timing in Group 3.
• The Bible says in Genesis 1 that “In the beginning” … “God created…”  That was thousands of years before science came to believe that “time” and “space” began at the Big Bang.

A note for all the topics:  Not surprisingly, there may be accounts of some of these things in the writings of ancient cultures.  For example, some likely had clues on the water cycle, “observed” that there were many stars and may have even noticed some arc to the horizon.  But, the point here is that the Bible is not intended to be a science book and yet got all of these things which were intended to show the glory of God correct.  And some of them were completely unobservable at the time.  Most of the items above were written 3,000+ years ago.  At that time they had no reason to think that everything had not always been just 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.  They 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 made these statements because that is what God guided them to do.

Second Group:  Examples of science in the Bible requiring a compassionate preface:
Here is the preface.  Recognize 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.  Isn’t that what a loving and wise parent would do as they try to help their child mature into an adult.  So, here is an important preface on a central Christian concept.  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 called out for the good of the person.  In the last part of Romans chapter 1, God gives a short list of behaviors that God rejects and will not allow in Heaven.  Some are agreeable to most as wrong behaviors such as greed, malice, murder and gossip.  But, some other behaviors God rejects are things current culture celebrates.  After this short list, God says in verse 32 that while He rejects these “behaviors”, the only “people” that He will reject are those that “practice” or “approve” of these behaviors.  Again, that is because He doesn’t want these behaviors in Heaven.  The reality is that ALL of us likely have a struggle with one or more of these behaviors.  So, if you have a “history of” or “struggle with” some of these behaviors, know that God knows that you will never fully conquer the list.  God is looking for you to acknowledge these are wrong behaviors and let Him help you work on them.  If you do that, know that God wants to come alongside you like a loving and wise parent and help you work on them.  Also recognize that these behaviors will not be a struggle anymore in Heaven as we have new bodies.  Also, remember that Jesus died on the cross to take away all condemnation for these behaviors.

Two topics in this group.

• First Topic:  When does life begin:  Here are some real science facts.  Right after conception, the baby always has different DNA than mom.  Our DNA defines us as a unique biological person.  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 heart beating happen around week 6.  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.  Yet, some people will tell you that the baby is just a blob of cells that are part of the mother and there is no reason to not just throw it into the trash if inconvenient for mom.  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.  From a science perspective, with it’s unique DNA, baby is a unique person in development starting at conception, not a part of mommy’s body.  From a biological science perspective, after conception, the mom only provides shelter and nourishment for the rest of the pregnancy and even afterwards.  Now, nurturing is something some moms do very well such singing to their baby while in the womb.  But that is primarily about the emotional well-being of her baby, not the biology.  Note that from a scientific standpoint, “viability” is only a stage of development, not a shift from a blob of mom’s cells to a person.  “Viability” happens long after all the baby’s body parts are in place and maturing.  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 in minutes or hours after birth.  But a human baby is completely dependent on others for food and shelter for months.  Viability is a very poor way of determining the personhood of a baby.  So, every abortion is preceded by a discussion between a mom and her doctor.  But that conversation is ALWAYS about the life of a growing, unique baby, not some part of mommy’s body.  In multiple places in the Bible, God says He knew us while in the womb and already had a plan for us.  Again, remember, if you have had an abortion and now acknowledge that is not something you agree with anymore, God forgives you and you are whole with Him on that topic.
  • 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 does not accept as normal:  When certain parts of our brain are more active than normal or certain DNA variants are different than normal, it leads to behaviors we mostly do not accept such as tendencies towards alcoholism, anger and more.  But we celebrate some other non-natural behaviors found among people with these non-standard biological attributes.  These biological attributes are not the way God designed us, but are results of the biological corruption that has come into the world through our activities.  Simply put, sometimes our biology forms in non-standard ways during our time in the womb.  Look for yourself and you will find that although all the science organizations will say some of these celebrated behaviors are natural, they have no actual biological science to support that outside of non-standard biology configurations.  Ask yourself, why do we celebrate some of these behaviors and try to help people overcome some of the other behaviors…  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.  It would not be surprising if we found that every one of us has some behavior or attitude that we will never conquer in this life.  God will allow that if it will help keep us from being prideful.  God used Paul to grow the early Church and yet left Paul with an issue to keep him from being prideful.

There shouldn’t be much debate about the science in these first two groups.  This third group is an area where healthy debate is still needed because the risk of excluding potential answers to the open questions could be far reaching.  If you get hung up on these, especially the macro-evolution item, remember that all the other items of science mentioned in the Bible actually line up with science and actually preceded science by hundreds or even thousands of years.  If that is not enough to wonder if there might be something worth probing, at least hang for the “concluding thoughts” at the end and especially the closing question at the end.

Third Group of examples of science in the Bible:  These topics 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 here.  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) they don’t want to admit that the other side has a better explanation.

• 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.  That might be because scientists don’t like addressing “plausible” answers that cannot be proven or disproven by testing and we currently have no way of testing what existed or happened before the Big Bang and what triggered it.  But the most interesting question is what happened next.  There is a very plausible scenario that only needs two pieces of data to understand how both old and young ages might be true at the same time.
  • The first piece of data is a very basic concept in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity that you have seen in many science fiction movies and books.  It says that as objects move faster, they experience time differently.  Most of us don’t notice it in our daily lives because things around us just don’t travel that fast.  But, as things start to travel super-fast, it becomes noticeable.  In science fiction movies, they will have scenarios where people traveling at super speeds in space travel don’t age as fast as people back on earth.  It is currently believed that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light.  But, as we approach that speed, the experience of time warping or dilation is tremendous.  We know of no one that has considered how much time dilated during the Big Bang, including the following hours after the initial burst.
  • The second piece of data to understand is that God said He “stretched the Universe” at Creation.  He likely “stretched” it at or near light speed because that is what science sees in the Big Bang data.  He only needed to do so at super close to light speed, but since He exists outside of time and space, he could do so at light speed where internally time would come to a halt.  For Creation, it is completely reasonable, even the most likely situation considering how fast the Universe is expanding, that the time dilation of this stretching happened in what might appear to be 1+ days from inside that event and billions of years from outside the event.

Here are two possible reconciliations of the Bible and science leveraging that time dilation:

• • If the primary stretching was completed on Day 1, it preserves “evening and morning”, but it is more difficult to match the physical evidence found for days 2-6.
  • If the primary stretching continued throughout Days 1-6, it has opposite impacts.  It lines up with an old Universe / Earth, but creates difficulty explaining the phrase “evening and morning”.
  • Note that the Universe is still stretching at super high speeds.  So, that might relate to other things in the Bible such as when it talks about how they will “come quickly / soon”.  These things may 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.

• Second Topic in the group:  “Macro”-evolution:  “Macro”-evolution is defined here as changing from one family, phyla, etc. into a different family, phyla.  “Micro”-evolution covers changes within a species and is agreed to by all groups of scientists.  Central to macro-evolution is the core process of slow changes over time because of the multiple, sometimes complex changes required.  Note that most discussions on evolution present data that supports micro-evolution.  Here are some of the problems for macro-evolution:
  • There are several important things that naturalistic evolutionists acknowledge that we don’t actually have the evidence required by the Scientific Method, but they say these things are accepted as fact because of enough indirect evidence.  Examples include “First Life” and the evolution of DNA and related body plan processes.  Again, the context here is macro-evolution.  But we are going to focus on the actual bursting emergence of the multiple major body plans at multiple times 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 the positive mutations, which are less frequent, 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, it likely will not survive.  Then, in order to get to a completely new family, phyla, etc., you need successful incremental transitional body plan component changes.  Time requirements multiply exponentially for all these requirements.
  • Second:  Proportional numbers of fossil evidence of intermediary forms with complete body plans is required for new families, phyla, etc.  This lack of intermediary forms for macro-evolution is common in the fossil record.  The Cambrian Explosion (new Phyla) and the Great Ordovician Biodiversity Event (GOBE) (new families) are just two examples of several times when many new and complete body plans appeared “suddenly” in the fossil record without necessary intermediary fossils to body forms in lower strata.  That is why they get 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.
  • Summary:  There is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution.  But, a solid case for naturalistic only macro-evolution with emphasis on “macro” meaning new families, phyla, etc., would require BOTH 1) lots of incremental complete body plan changes happening from the infrequent positive mutations that also successfully integrate with other body plan components, AND 2) the fossil record should have proportional evidence of the numerous incremental intermediary successful complete body plans.  We just don’t have both of the those when and where we should.  Cycling evolutionary bursts and speciation along with phylogenetic trees are fine for micro evolution because less and smaller complete body plan changes are needed the micro-evolutionary cycles.  There are reasons speculated why these might not be there, but the fact is that they are not.  This is an example of where naturalistic macro-evolution is given a pass, but other frameworks are not.  Basically, we still don’t have the supporting evidence for the gaps in naturalist model yet.  Maybe someday, but not yet.  As such, we should not be excluding frameworks that provide answers such as old Universe/Earth Bible frameworks that involve some outside intervention from a source that got all it’s other science right hundreds and even thousands of years before modern science found them.  A data source that spurred on some of the very credible founding fathers of modern science.

Concluding thoughts:

• First and most important:  Clear and unbiased evaluation of 1) what the Bible actually says, and 2) what is actually in the fossil evidence (and what is actually in the Universe) is required to find the most likely truth.  Both sides tend to spotlight problem areas of other frameworks and generously accept evidence and data 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 is said.  Similarly, the clear gaps in the evidence for 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.
• Next:  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 glory.  So, the more we attribute things to miracles and not seen in the evidence, the less Creation is giving evidence of His glory.  In reality, it is creating a far larger stumbling block than giving glory.  Again, you may be right, but too bad that it is creating huge stumbling block because miracles is the only explanation for most 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.
    • Some of you say that the naturalistic framework explains everything that happened and God guided those steps (e.g. Theistic Evolution).  That basically means that there is nothing in the data to indicate God played a role.  That would give no glory to God.  It also puts the integrity of the Bible in question.
    • For those that do see 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 and bursts in body plans in the fossil records, etc. (e.g. Intelligent Design).  The creation of “time” and “space” is also actually in both the Bible and naturalistic science discussions.  Tying the Cambrian Explosion, GOBE, etc. to the items grouped in the Creation account 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 science.  This is an undervalued talking point.
  • Naturalistic/materialistic only scientists (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 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.
    • Don’t be so quick to write off what is in the religious texts.  Remember that the 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.  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.
    • 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.
• Third concluding thought: Science needs to be consistent.  Science only accepts what it can observe.  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 it was consistent on the requirement.  To be consistent:
  • Science should not “rule out” things like God creating the Universe if, 1) It cannot prove God doesn’t exist, 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, and 3) The Bible consistently got science right before science did.
  • Science should not “declare as truth” things with important gaps in evidence such as 1) “First Life”, 2) the complexity of DNA and related body plan components, 3) the existence of dark matter and dark energy, and 4) the sudden macro-evolution bursts of so many new body forms several times in history.
• 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 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 design components is a small thing compared to the creation and implementation of those design components.  Also, there are very important design components that have not yet met the scientific criteria of “repeatable processes” and / or “proven evidence” such as dark matter, dark energy, First Life and multiple macro-evolutionary bursts leading to multiple new families and phyla.
  • Scientists says 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 wonder 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?  This is an area of positive credibility for scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson.  He admits that God might be the answer to some of these things.  He doesn’t appear to be interested in pursuing that, but he is not ruling out the possibility.  That is integrity.

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…