Should “Science” Trump Scripture?

JEFF MILLER, Ph.D.

CREATION VS. EVOLUTIONINSPIRATION OF THE BIBL

 ARTICLE IN BRIEF

While 21st-century America by-in-large places its faith in science and its naturalistic spokesmen, Christians should never forget that the findings of science are rarely certain. God’s Word, however, “cannot be broken.” Fallible scientists cannot compete with the God-inspired penmen of Scripture. While science is a valuable and God-ordained tool of the Christian, science “will pass away.” The Word of God, however, “endures forever.”

Are creationists “science deniers,” as some contend?1 While we cannot speak for all Christians, we love science. The amazing things that science has done for mankind, the evidence science provides for the existence and defense of God, the things that we can learn about God and the things He has done, the value that Scripture places on science, and the pure fun of engaging in science compel us to use it and encourage others to do so as well. 

As would be expected by Creation scientists, legitimate scientific findings never contradict a proper understanding of Scripture. But what about those cases where modern scientists arrive at conclusions that are diametrically opposed to the pronouncements of Scripture? Should the supposed “findings” of science (e.g., evolutionary or deep time science) supersede the proclamations of Scripture when the two are in disagreement? Should the research and conclusions of scientists be trusted over the writings of the Bible’s penmen?

Among Bible believers, the answer to the question in the title of this article probably seems obvious, at least on the surface. “Of course, Scripture should supersede science!” However, to most of us in the 21st century, science has a special place of authority in our hearts—perhaps too prominent a place if we are being completely honest with ourselves. Whether subconsciously or consciously, science often takes precedence over Scripture in the minds of many Christians today. Should it?

Should physics trump Scripture when it says someone cannot walk on liquid water and, therefore, Jesus could not have done so? Does archaeology trump Scripture in our minds when it provides no evidence of over a million wandering Jews in the 1440s B.C., prompting a “re-interpretation” of Scripture? Does archaeology outweigh the Bible when Scripture mentions the existence of ancient nations or individuals for which archaeologists have not discovered physical evidence? Should contemporary cosmology trump Scripture when it says the Big Bang, not Creation, explains the Universe? Should the claims of conventional paleontologist's trump Scripture when they claim that the fossil record proves humans evolved from non-human, ape-like creatures or that humans and dinosaurs never co-existed? Should modern astronomy trump Scripture when it says the Universe must be billions of years old in order for distant starlight to have reached Earth? Should chemistry trump Scripture when it claims rocks are billions of years old? Should conventional geology supersede the Bible when it claims that a global Flood did not happen? Should biology trump Scripture when it “substantiates” that life cannot come from non-life, and therefore Jesus’ resurrection did not occur? Should naturalistic biology be accepted as the ultimate authority if it claims that humans evolved from single-celled organisms over millions of years rather than having been created by God fully functional and mature in a single day? If science does not support something which we believe, how likely are we to adjust our belief and reinterpret Scripture accordingly? Should science trump the Bible when it is said to “prove” something to be or not to be the case?

First, note that we have thoroughly addressed the issues above (and continue to do so), illustrating that true science in fact always (without exception) harmonizes with Scripture. Science is a great tool in the Christian’s workshop. Once the underlying, erroneous assumptions of each of the above conclusions are exposed and assessed for their validity, one is forced to conclude that the Bible is perfectly reliable and should be trusted in what it forthrightly teaches. Rest assured, however, that other “issues” will arise in the future that will, no doubt, pressure Christians to question and reinterpret Scripture. How, then, should the Christian respond to such issues when they arise? Should the “findings” of conventional (i.e., naturalistic2) science be favored over the teachings of Scripture?

In Science We (Dis)trust?

A study of 10,000 Internet users from 24 countries was reported in Nature in 2022. They found that, “People are more likely to believe a cryptic claim if it comes from a scientist than from a spiritual guru…. The researchers found that regardless of their country or level of religiosity, participants regarded absurd claims from a scientist as more credible than those from a spiritual leader.”3 Our world increasingly puts its trust in the claims of modern science, even though the bulk of the scientific community today is naturalistic (i.e., anti-supernatural) in its thinking, pro-evolution, and its leaders even openly anti-God. And yet, from outright fraud4 to bumbling blunder5, evolutionary theory has been riddled with reminders that its findings should not be taken as “gospel,” no matter how much “consensus” or lack thereof favors or disfavors a position. Famous skeptic Michael Shermer, ex-monthly columnist for Scientific American, acknowledged the hoaxes and blunders that have been made by evolutionists over the years. “Hoaxes like Piltdown Man and honest mistakes like Nebraska Man, Calaveras Man, and Hesperopithecus are in time exposed. In fact…, it was scientists who did so.”6 He explained one of the reasons mistakes have been made (intentionally or unintentionally) in evolutionary paleoanthropology sometimes comes down to a scientist’s desire to make a big find.

If you want to get your fossil find published in Science or Nature, and you want the cover illustration, you cannot conclude that your fossil is yet another Australopithecus africanus, for example. You had better come up with an interpretation indicating that this new find you are revealing to the world for the first time is the most spectacular discovery of the last century and that it promises to overturn hominid phylogeny and send everyone back to the drawing board to reconfigure the human evolutionary tree. Training a more skeptical eye on these fossils, however, shows that many of them belong in already well established categories.7

Whether a scientist’s mistake was intentional or not, and whether or not “a more skeptical eye” later uncovers bad science, the problem is that society at large has often been too quick to “accept evolutionists’ word for it,” trusting their claims long before those claims have been thoroughly vetted. By the time the truth surfaces, society has accepted the initial claims as true, oftentimes publishing the false information in textbooks, where society is influenced by the false information for decades. In the words of famous Harvard evolutionary paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, concerning the false information about horse evolution found in textbooks to prop up evolution:

Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed…).8

Concerning the lack of transitional fossils needed to prove the validity of evolution, he admitted, “[T]he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.”9 Given the significance of such testimony by perhaps the leading evolutionary paleontologist of the 20th century, which effectively falsifies Darwinian evolution, the critically minded, rational person should question how many other “trade secrets” exist in evolutionary science. How many people have been convinced that evolution and deep time are true and biblical Creation is false by erroneous claims made by naturalistic scientists over the decades, from Ernst Haeckel’s fabricated embryonic recapitulation to the forged fossils of Piltdown Man?

JWST: A Recent Example of the Fallibility of Evolutionary Science

The latest highlight of mainstream science’s fallibility with regard to cosmic evolutionary theories (e.g., the Big Bang Theory) is seen in the explosive images being made by the new, extremely powerful James Webb Space Telescope, which is taking pictures of distant galaxies from space. The discoveries of “mature” galaxies that should be infant galaxies if the standard Big Bang model were true “challenge existing ideas about the earliest galaxies.”10 If the findings are correct, according to New Scientist, they could “break our models of galaxy formation and evolution.”11

Under the article title “Breaking Cosmology,” Scientific American reported that “theorists and observers have been scrambling to explain” the unexpected results. The discovery of massive galaxies, which would have had to have formed less than 500 million years after the supposed Big Bang based on their distance from Earth, “defies expectations set by cosmologists’ standard model of the universe’s evolution…. ‘Even if you took everything that was available to form stars and snapped your fingers instantaneously, you still wouldn’t be able to get that big that early,’ says Michael Boylan-Kolchin, a cosmologist at the University of Texas at Austin.”12

In 2022, four galaxies thought to date “to about 350 [million] years after the big bang”13 were found, which was explosive news since galaxies are thought to have taken a billion years or so to start forming after the Big Bang. Those galaxies, however, “were far smaller” than the more recent discoveries. The telescope has now “detected what appear to be six massive ancient galaxies, which astronomers are calling ‘universe breakers’ because their existence could upend current theories of cosmology…. If confirmed, the findings would call into question scientists’ understanding of how the earliest galaxies formed.”14 “‘These objects are way more massive than anyone expected,’ said Joel Leja, an assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State University…. ‘We expected [i.e., predicted—JM] only to find tiny, young, baby galaxies at this point in time, but we’ve discovered galaxies as mature as our own in what was previously understood to be the dawn of the universe.’”15 According to astrophysicist of the University of Colorado Boulder, Erica Nelson, “These galaxies should not have had time to form.”16

“The most startling explanation” for the discovery of mature galaxies that are so far away, Scientific American explains, “is that the…[standard] cosmological model is wrong and requires revision. ‘These results are very surprising and hard to get in our standard model of cosmology,’ Boylan-Kolchin says. ‘And it’s probably not a small change. We’d have to go back to the drawing board.’”17 Admittedly, the results are still relatively new and must be confirmed, but the “sheer number” of discovered early, mature galaxies is compelling. The lead scientist of the Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science Survey, Steven Finkelstein (University of Texas at Austin), said, “The odds are small that we’re all wrong.”18 Any way we look at the results, something in modern cosmological theories appears to be broken in this case.

Retractions and Reproducibility: A Continuing Crisis

But the propensity for errors is not a problem that is quarantined to evolutionary sciences. The problem is much broader, affecting modern science in general. If a scientific study has been completed honestly, unbiasedly, and correctly, a separate group of scientists should be able to follow the same steps as the first group and arrive at the same results and conclusions. If a different result follows the study, it calls into question the validity of at least one of the studies. Reproducibility, therefore, is one of the most powerful tools the scientific community has at its disposal to weed out bad science. “Replicability is the basis of all good science…. ‘When you publish a paper, it is your ethical duty to make sure other people can reproduce it,’” says Regius professor of chemistry at the University of Glasgow, Lee Cronin.19 Alarmingly, however, as we have documented extensively in a separate article,20 the scientific community has in recent years acknowledged that a surprisingly small number of scientific studies are able to be reproduced by other laboratories—possibly far fewer than 50%. Whether because of fraud, bias, bad science, insufficient information, or accidental mistakes, the conclusion is the same: scientists are fallible and their work and findings should not even begin to be accepted without serious investigation and, even then, should almost always be viewed as tentative (as will be discussed later).

Bottom line, scientists are not as impartial, dispassionate, and perfection prone as they might like the world to believe. In the words of Sonia Cooke, writing in New Scientist concerning scientists and irreproducible research:

Science is often thought of as a dispassionate search for the truth. But, of course, we are all only human. And most people want to climb the professional ladder. The main way to do that if you’re a scientist is to get grants and publish lots of papers. The problem is that journals have a clear preference for research showing strong, positive relationships—between a particular medical treatment and improved health, for example. This means researchers often try to find those sorts of results. A few go as far as making things up. But a huge number tinker with their research in ways they think are harmless, but which can bias the outcome. This tinkering can take many forms…. You peek at the results and stop an experiment when it shows what you were expecting. You throw out data points that don’t fit your hypothesis—something could be wrong with those results, you reason. Or you run several types of statistical analysis and end up using the one that shows the strongest effect. “It can be very hard to even see that biases might be entering your reasoning,” says psychologist Brian Nosek at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, who led the team trying to replicate 100 psychology studies…. You might think that journals, which get peers from the same scientific field to review papers, would pick up on such practices. But, say critics, the system isn’t up to the task [since reviewers do not generally dig into the nitty-gritty details of the research—JM]…. All this helps explain why so many studies don’t hold up when others try to replicate them.21

Atheistic evolutionist, prominent science writer, and director of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at M.I.T., Boyce Rensberger, admitted:

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.22

With such an arrogant, blind faith in one’s own ideas, is it surprising that mistakes will be made in science? Christians: should science trump Scripture?

If the reproducibility crisis in the scientific community does not cause a person to question the supposed infallible conclusions of the scientific community, he is revealing his own blind faith—that he is not interested in truth arrived at by evidence. Keep in mind that many of the claims of today’s God-less scientists—that must be true in order to prove Darwinian evolutionary theory, the Big Bang Theory, and old Earth theory—are not based on studies where reproducibility has been achieved. Why? Because, by their very nature, such cannot be achieved.

For instance, a scientist may hypothesize a way to cause laws of science, matter/energy/life/genetic information to originate on their own in nature, but such goals cannot be repeated in a laboratory, because there is no evidence that they can happen at all, much less that they can be replicated by others!23 Consider: have the claims of the Big Bang Theory been witnessed, much less replicated? Has Big Bang Inflation, a necessary invention to solve other Big Bang issues,24 been observed? Have scientists witnessed anything coming from nothing before it could expand in the Big Bang?25 Have scientists witnessed the spontaneous formation of a galaxy or even a star, which would have to be able to happen if the Big Bang were true? Have scientists witnessed one type of lifeform morph into or give birth to another type of life form, as Darwinian evolution claims has happened millions of times?26 No, on every count. Replicability is essential to helping the scientific community arrive at truth in science. Yet many of the most important claims of evolutionary science, that provide the very foundation of the entire model, indeed have no evidence to substantiate them, much less having been replicated by scientists. Should the findings of secular science—which are often mere claims, hypotheses, and conjectures—be taken as “gospel” by the Christian? To ask is to answer.

The Very Nature of Science

Even where scientists have not been intentionally deceptive, made grandiose, baseless assumptions that underlie their theories, or made inadvertent mistakes in their research or experimentation, few today seem to realize that, according to modern naturalistic scientists themselves, observational or experimental science carries with it an inherent “tentativeness.” Those things scientists discover, explore, and “determine” are always understood to be uncertain. In other words, it is recognized that current scientists may be found at a later point to have been wrong in their current scientific interpretations and conclusions, because they are always working with limited information. Scientists are not omniscient. We recognize that there may be a set of unknown circumstances or new evidence that could, for example, disprove a current theory27—which is why it is a “theory.”

Especially tentative are those theories that scientists have developed that pertain to historical science (science as it relates to events of the distant past that we were unable to witness or study). The process of experimental or observational science requires observation or experiment in the present, so those things that are in the past or might happen in the future generally cannot be known with certainty.28 In the observational science championed by naturalists, all conclusions about the past and future must be based on circumstances in the present, which may or may not have applied in the past or will apply in the future.29 Understanding that fact makes using naturalistic science as the ultimate standard of “truth” a dangerous prospect. That concept is precisely what famous Harvard evolutionist of the 20th century, George Gaylord Simpson, was alluding to concerning the nature of science, when he said:

We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences. Alternatively, proof in a natural science, such as biology, must be defined as the attainment of a high degree of confidence.30

Naturalistic science deals in levels of confidence—not certainty. Scientific conclusions about what happened in the distant past, what will happen in the future, and why that is the case can never be known with certainty. The only way to know with certainty that a scientific conclusion about the distant past is correct is if there is an ultimate source of truth that can validate the conclusion. The only source capable of such a feat is called the Bible. Accepting that source of authority, however, would (1) acknowledge that Scripture should supersede modern, naturalistic scientific interpretation and (2) acknowledge that naturalistic science is fundamentally false.

Scientists are not inspired by God to give perfect truth to the world, but the Bible writers were inspired by the omniscient Creator of the Universe to articulate perfectly absolute truth.31 Everything they wrote down, therefore, can be known to be accurate, unlike the limited, tentative findings of science. “[K]nowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21, ESV). Scientists must rely on their own imperfect interpretation of the limited evidence they have examined, but the teachings of Scripture do not rely on human interpretation. In other words, man, not being the originator of prophetic material, does not establish its meaning/interpretation. The teachings of Scripture are the absolute truth: all of them (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

But Can the Bible Be Correctly Interpreted?

Development of the heliocentric model of the solar system is often credited to the work of the famous astronomer and mathematician Nicolaus Copernicus in the 1500s.32 The Catholic Church at the time championed the belief that Scripture teaches that our solar system operates geocentrically, i.e., the Earth, not the Sun, is the center of the solar system. When Galileo signed on as a believer in Copernicus’ model in the 1600s, the Catholic Church convicted him of heresy.33 According to some, the Galileo incident is an example of how Scripture can be misinterpreted34 and must sometimes be re-interpreted to stay in keeping with science—i.e., science should override Scripture.

Can Scripture be properly interpreted, or are we left to guess its meaning, or adjust it to suit the times in which we live or our whims? We have thoroughly addressed this question elsewhere,35 and will only summarize the subject here. As mentioned earlier, 2 Peter 1:20-21 states in no uncertain terms that the meaning of the information in Scripture is based on the intended meaning of its Author, the Holy Spirit. It does not originate in the minds of man. Peter goes on to warn in the following verse, however, that “false prophets” and “false teachers” would arise that would not accept that truth, but would originate “destructive heresies” and “bring on themselves swift destruction” (2:1). Unfortunately, he warned that “many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed” (2:2). That sad truth immediately calls to our minds those self-proclaimed Christians who have sometimes been our most outspoken critics. Because they have joined forces with the God-less scientists around them against Christians, they cause “the way of truth” to be “blasphemed,” playing into the hands of the ultimate enemy, who no doubt glories in yet another victory.

Consider, why would Jesus tell the Pharisees to go learn what Hosea 6:6 means if one cannot do so or if there was not a single meaning they needed to ascertain (Matthew 9:13)? Why, if God’s Word cannot be properly interpreted, would Jesus state that anyone who wants to do His will can “know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority” (John 7:17)? Paul highlighted in 2 Timothy 2:15 that the “word of truth” can be “rightly divided” or handled rightly/correctly/accurately (ESV, NIV, NASB), and in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 stated that truth can be proved through testing (ASV), which the Bereans demonstrated through diligent examination of the Scriptures for doctrinal accuracy (Acts 17:11). Jesus and Paul explicitly stated (John 8:32; 2 Timothy 3:7; 1 Timothy 2:4) that the truth can be and must be known—not made up to suit our personal beliefs. If we are incapable of properly interpreting God’s Word, why would such statements be found in the Bible? How could God’s Law have a “lawful” way to handle it, if it cannot even be known with certainty (1 Timothy 1:8)?

It is certainly the case that the Bible can be misinterpreted and misused by mankind if we fail to apply the appropriate diligence to ascertaining God’s meaning (2 Timothy 2:15), which takes extensive study (Acts 17:11). God’s Word can be handled deceitfully (2 Corinthians 4:2; 1 John 4:1), perversely (Acts 20:30; Galatians 1:7), with resistance to its message (2 Timothy 3:7-8) and distortion of its truths (2 Peter 3:16). Scripture warns the interpreter not to go beyond its message,36 which implies that it has a particular message that we can know and must not go beyond. We are tasked with having authority from the Lord (gained from His Word) for what we do and say in life (Colossians 3:17; Acts 4:7), again implying that we must be able to understand and properly interpret its truths in order for it to govern our lives.

The Catholic Church doubtlessly twisted certain passages beyond their meaning or went beyond what was written in its adamance that the Earth is the center of the solar system (binding where God had not bound), but their violation of Scripture at the time does not mean that God’s Word cannot be understood and properly interpreted. Indeed it can. Man can “come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4) about many things.

Scripture Overrules Scientific Assertions

Scientific hypotheses and theories are regularly disproved and adjusted to fit with the ever-expanding compendium of information gained through scientific investigation. While science is valuable, unlike the words of scientists, however, God’s Word “cannot be broken” (John 10:35). It is God’s Word that will judge us in the last day—not the ever-changing words and theories of naturalistic scientists (John 12:48). The Bible is what will save us in the end, not science (James 1:21).37 Obedience to God’s Word, not the findings of science, will save a person in the end (Hebrews 5:9). So, which should be prioritized? It is God, through His Word—not secular scientists, through their tentative theories—that provides mankind “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:2-3). Scripture should always trump the claims of naturalistic science when the two are irrevocably in contradiction. Our life must be lived based on the authority of God in His Word (Colossians 3:17), not the condescending edicts of fallible scientists. Allowing the scientific pronouncements of worldly scientists to supersede Scripture in our beliefs is a failure to heed the warning of Paul:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Timothy 4:3-5).

The teachers (e.g., professors) who have been “heaped up” by unbelievers that allow them to “follow their own desires” are many, influential, authoritative, intimidating, and, by the world’s standards, “mighty,” causing many a Christian to begin questioning Scripture when it contradicts the latest scientific “consensus.”38 This often leads the believer to “bow” to modern naturalistic science and twist Scripture to accede to the mighty word of scientific consensus. But to do so invites “destruction,” according to the infallible Word of God (2 Peter 3:16). The one who builds his house on the shaky sands of naturalistic science will watch his house fall, but the one who builds his home on the rock of God’s Word will enjoy a house unscathed by the same storms of life that obliterate the houses built on the words of fallible men (Matthew 7:24-27).

Does that mean that Christians should disregard science—that it has no value? Should science be a consideration at all, biblically speaking? Certainly. God has revealed a portion of Himself to us through creation (Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1)—a form of revelation we term “general revelation” (as opposed to Scripture, which is “special revelation”). By studying the things He has done in creation (i.e., engaging in science), we can learn about Him (Acts 14:17) and the amazing things He has done. He expects us to do so (Psalm 111:2). We must learn about Him to be able to defend His cause (1 Peter 3:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). We must learn to subdue and have dominion over the Earth (Genesis 1:28), so that we can be good stewards of the things with which God has entrusted us (Genesis 2:15; Luke 12:41-48; Proverbs 12:10).39 Science can be very valuable to the Christian, but where “science” and “Scripture” are at odds, assuming the Bible has been studied sufficiently to ensure its proper meaning in that instance, Scripture must take precedence, and the science should be re-assessed for its validity. After all, once again, while the Bible can be known with certainty to be true, observational/experimental science is extremely limited in what it can know about occurrences in the distant, unobserved past. If accepting the teaching of Scripture leads to a denial of scientific “consensus,” the faithful follower of Christ must take His side over that of the World. After all, 3,500 years ago, God, through Moses, warned about the potential dangers of “consensus” thinking: “You shall not follow a crowd to do evil: nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice” (Exodus 23:2). In the continual conflict between the world and the Church, the non-believer and the Christian, Satan and God, the believer must be extremely careful how he testifies in the dispute. In the words of the prophet Jehu, spoken to King Jehoshaphat of Judah in the ninth century B.C., “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you” (2 Chronicles 19:2).

Unfortunately, God hasn’t revealed everything to us that we might want to know about the Universe’s past, present, or future (Deuteronomy 29:29). He has given us what we need to know to get to heaven (2 Peter 1:3). If we want to know more about the Universe, science can be a valuable tool to try to answer certain questions and fill in information gaps. Once again, however, experimental science generally must do so without certainty in those cases. We cannot formally validate or invalidate every theory in science by going to God’s Word, but through His Word, He has revealed truth and extensive information that has scientific implications. We know that the truths of Scripture, not science, can set us free (John 8:32). So if conventional geology—the science of rocks—claims to disprove the Word of God, the Christian should remember the words of God in Jeremiah 23:29. “‘Is not My word like a fire?’ says the Lord, ‘And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?’” Ultimately, a deeper study of the geologic claim will uncover the truth and result in the realization that true geology always supports Scripture. Science seeks to study heaven and Earth, but Jesus warned, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

“All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you. Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious (1 Peter 1:24b-2:3).

Endnotes

1 E.g., Lee McIntyre (2019), “Flat Earthers, and the Rise of Science Denial in America,” Newsweek on-line, February 28, https://www.newsweek.com/flat-earth-science-denial-america-1421936.

2 By “naturalistic” science, we mean science that disregards the possibility of supernatural involvement in the Universe. Naturalistic science is the “consensus” perspective in the scientific community and, therefore, is often used today interchangeably with the word “science.” We would argue that science is not synonymous with naturalistic science. Scripture does not trump true science since they will always harmonize. Scripture trumps naturalistic science.

3 “Credibility Score: People Put Their Trust in Scientists” (2022), Nature, 602[7897]:365, February 17, emp. added.

4 E.g., Ernst Haeckel’s faked embryos to prove embryonic recapitulation; the “Piltdown Man” creation to provide an evolutionary missing link [Wayne Jackson (2009), “Frauds in Science,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/frauds-in-science-312/]. 

5 E.g., Java Man, Nebraska Man, Flipper Man, Orce Man, Java Man 2, Southwestern Colorado Man, Calaveras Man, disproven Big Bang Inflation evidence, etc. [Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), pp. 88-91; I. Anderson (1983), “Humanoid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin’s Rib,” New Scientist, April 28, p. 199; Miquel Carandell Baruzzi (2020), The Orce Man (Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV); Jeff Miller (2015), “Big Bang Inflation Officially Bites the Dust,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:62-65, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1506w1.pdf].

6 Michael Shermer (2007), Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (New York: Henry Holt), Kindle edition, p. 85.

7 Ibid., p. 147.

8 Stephen Jay Gould (2000), “Abscheulich! (Atrocious),” Natural History, 109[2]:42-50, March, paren. in orig., emp. added, p. 45.

9 Stephen Jay Gould (1977), “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, 86[5]:12-16, May, p. 13, emp. added.

10 Stephen Ornes (2023), “A Fresh Eye on the Beginning of Time,” Discover Magazine, 44[1]:28, January/February.

11 Leah Crane (2022), “Cosmic Celebration,” New Scientist, 256[3417/3418]:27, December 17/24.

12 Jonathan O’Callaghan (2022), “Breaking Cosmology,” Scientific American, 327[6]:36, December.

13 Hannah Devlin (2023), “James Webb Telescope Detects Evidence of Ancient ‘Universe Breaker’ Galaxies,” The Guardian on-line, February 22, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/22/universe-breakers-james-webb-telescope-detects-six-ancient-galaxies?mibextid=unz460.

14 Ibid., emp. added.

15 Ibid.

16 As quoted in Devlin, emp. added.

17 O’Callaghan, p. 38, emp. added.

18 As quoted in O’Callaghan, p. 38.

19 Jonathon Keats (2021), “Life Hack,” Discover, 42[7]:36, November, December, emp. added.

20 Jeff Miller (2023), “In Science Should We Trust? The On-going Reproducibility Crisis,” Reason & Revelation, 43[5]:50-59, May, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2305-web.pdf.

21 Sonia van Gilder Cooke (2016), “The Unscientific Method,” New Scientist, 230[3069]:40-41, April 16-22, emp. added.

22 Boyce Rensberger (1986), How the World Works (New York: William Morrow), pp. 17-18, emp. added.

23 Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Apologetics Press: Montgomery, AL), revised and expanded.

24 Jeff Miller (2015), “Big Bang Inflation Officially Bites the Dust,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:62-65, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1506w1.pdf.

25 Jeff Miller (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/evolution-and-the-laws-of-science-the-laws-of-thermodynamics-2786/.

26 Jeff Miller (2014), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Parts 1-2],” Reason & Revelation, 34[1]:2-10, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1401ww.pdf.

27 Or even our current definition of a scientific “law.”

28 A rare exception would be the logical, evidence-based conclusion in the present that the Universe exhibits design features, implying a prior Designer of those features at some point in the past (Romans 1:20), although that process was not observed.

29 To claim the circumstances applied or will apply is an assumption that cannot be known with certainty.

30 George G. Simpson and William S. Beck (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World), p. 16, emp. Added.

31 Cf. Kyle Butt (2022), Is the Bible God’s Word? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Dave Miller (2020), The Bible Is From God: A Sampling of Proofs (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); and the “Inspiration of the Bible” section of the Apologetics Press website.

32 Although ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos hypothesized such a system in the third century B.C.

33 History.com Editors (2022), “Galileo Is Accused of Heresy,” History.com, April 12, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy.

34 Mario Livio (2020), “When Galileo Stood Trial for Defending Science,” History.com, May 19, https://www.history.com/news/galileo-copernicus-earth-sun-heresy-church.

35 Dave Miller (2003), “Hermeneutical Principles in the Old Testament,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/hermeneutical-principles-in-the-old-testament-967/.

36 Cf. Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Galatians 1:6-8; 2 John 9; Revelation 22:18-19.

37 Cf. Acts 11:14; 1 Corinthians 15:1-2; Ephesians 1:13; John 8:51.

38 For a response to the argument that scientific consensus should be accepted, see Jeff Miller (2012), “‘Evolution Is the Scientific Consensus—So You Should Believe It!’” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/evolution-is-the-scientific-consensusso-you-should-believe-it-4518/.

39 Cf. Jeff Miller (2012), “Science: Instituted by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[4]:46, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1204r.pdf

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.