Insights from hindsight: resolving seeming conflicts between science and
Scripture
Leonard Brand, PhD
Department of Earth and Biological Sciences
Loma Linda University
Abstract
How do we resolve conflicts between science and the Bible? In some apparent conflicts
clear understanding can only come with the passage of time, after time and study provide a more
balanced perspective on the issue, and a clearer view of the relationship between science and
faith. I suggest this process goes through three stages: Stage 1. Conflict and confusion; Stage
2. Research in science and deeper Bible study, with hindsight; Stage 3. Resolution and
insight. The paper discusses this process, with examples, illustrating an approach to resolution
that maintains Scripture as our reliable guide, while also respecting the scientific process.
The challenge
The Christian understanding of the Bible has suffered a series of challenges from
scientific conclusions throughout history. Copernicus disturbed the long accepted geocentric
understanding of the universe with his theory of an earth that turns on its axis and revolves
around the sun. Then Galileo ended up in house arrest because of his advocacy of Copernicus’s
novel idea that didn’t square with beliefs of the church. If that wasn’t enough, Darwin shook up
the Christian world with his claims that species aren’t fixed, but evolve through time. Along the
way it appeared the earth isn’t flat after all, there are two conflicting creation accounts in
Genesis, and Moses was wrong about the universe being like an upside down bowl holding the
stars up in the sky. Joshua 10:13 makes claims about God disturbing the movements of the sun
just so the Israelites can win their battle. How can we believe that, when the heavenly orbits are
so clearly consistent and reliable?
Now in the 21st century we are faced with radiometric dating over millions of years, ice
cores with tens of thousands of annual layers, a fossil record showing evolution of life forms, and
archeological evidence claiming the biblical Exodus didn’t happen, at least not the way the Bible
describes it.
This long series of conflicts between the Bible and science has, for many individuals,
shaken their confidence in the reliability of Scripture. Can we trust its message about history?
And if its claims about history are not factual, what about its claims of a new earth to come?
The scholarly Christian world is rapidly coming to a consensus that the story of a literal
creation and worldwide flood, a few thousand years ago is only a myth; life has evolved through
the millennia, and evil did not result from sins by Adam and Eve, but was just a part of the
evolution process. Is this shift of belief inevitable, or have many scholars missed something? A
central issue is the relationship between faith and science. Especially, how can we evaluate
conflicts between science and the Bible without letting our personal biases derail our better
judgment?
A conceptual framework to address the challenge
I suggest that careful study of science, the Bible, and the historical and sociological
context of the conflicts, with the benefits of hindsight can bring greater clarity to our
1
understanding of the conflicts and their solution. In some conflicts clear understanding can only
come later, after time and study provide a more balanced perspective.
We will begin with Galileo. The Galileo affair is often portrayed as exhibit A,
illustrating the dangers of allowing Scripture to influence our understanding of science, and
showing how science corrects theologically biased ideas about nature. During Galileo’s lifetime
the geocentric theory, with the sun orbiting around the earth, was still standard science, and also
orthodox Christian belief. In that context some Bible texts appeared to support the geocentric
theory, with the sun moving and the earth standing still.1
It may have been difficult for them to see through these texts and the church dogmas
associated with them. For us, long after Galileo, we have the benefits of hindsight, along with
much more knowledge of the relevant science and the historical and biblical context. In Ps 19:6
and Eccl 1:5 the sun rises and moves across the sky. We still use the same expressions about the
sun rising and setting. We know the sun doesn’t “rise;” it doesn’t move in relation to us, but
such expressions simply describe how it appears to us. It seems they were using similar
expressions in the same way. Other Bible texts describe the earth as established; it will not
move. But if we consider the immediate context of these statements, they are not within
descriptions of cosmology; they are in chapters with the theme of the greatness or majesty of
God (PS 93:1; 104:5) or a song of praise to God (I Chron 16:30), and the descriptive statements
about the earth are simply incidental to the theme of the chapter. The theme of Ps 119 is praise
of God’s law, including the laws that establish the earth and make it stand.
Before Copernicus and Galileo there was no reason to wonder whether these verses were
making a scientific claim about cosmology or just describing how things looked from our
position on earth. Now we can evaluate that. Before Copernicus their understanding of
cosmology and a simple description of the heavens seemed to be in agreement – the earth stood
still. However, from our perspective today, several hundred years later, we see it differently.
We can better understand the Bible texts in their immediate context, and recognize that they
simply describe appearances in the same way we do today. They are not theoretical scientific
statements. It is evident from the historical context that the geocentric theory in fact came from
Greek philosophy, not from a deep understanding of the Bible.2 Those Bible texts are not
descriptive creation accounts, in contrast to Genesis 1. We can also see that Galileo’s difficulties
arose more from conflicts within science, religious politics affecting Pope Urban III, and from
Galileo’s own abrasive personality than from any real conflict between science and the church.
Other astronomers of that time were discussing the heliocentric theory without sharing Galileo’s
fate.3 According to one historian, one of the most common myths about the Galileo affair is that
“he was condemned by the Catholic church for having discovered the truth,” and this myth is
“used to justify the incompatibility between science and religion.” He concludes that “this thesis
is erroneous, misleading, and simplistic.”4
These things were probably not readily understandable three centuries ago, but our
increased knowledge of the situation, with the benefit of hindsight, allows us to gain better
insights into the Galileo affair. There are some things we can learn from that historical episode.
It alerts us to the dangers of basing our interpretation of Scripture on current scientific beliefs, as
the church did in the pre-Galileo era. We can now see that science really did improve our
understanding of the Bible, because it showed the errors of Greek cosmology that were being
read into the Bible and suggesting untenable interpretations of texts whose meaning was not so
clear at that time. We can also learn to be more careful to respond to seeming conflicts by more
2
careful study to see if we might also be reading something between the lines of the Bible that
actually is not there.
I suggest there were three stages in our understanding of the Galileo affair:
Stage 1. Conflict and confusion
Stage 2. Research in science and deeper Bible study, with hindsight
Stage 3. Resolution and insight
This three stage process expands on the meaning of a diagram I have previously used to describe
a constructive approach for the integration of religion and science.5
In the process represented in this diagram, science does not test religious concepts, or vice versa.
But on the other hand, science and religion are not kept isolated from each other. Instead,
conflicts are analyzed in the thinking process called the Interface. Seeming conflicts between
Scripture and science challenge us to more careful study of both, seeking a resolution of the
conflict. The addition I am now making highlights the benefit of hindsight in finding a
resolution. It is possible that considerable time must pass before we can adequately understand
the context and resolution of some conflicts, moving from conflict (stage 1) through research
(stage 2), to resolution (stage 3) in a thoughtful interface between scientific and biblical
interpretations. Today, after much experience with this process, we can in some issues, move
through the process faster.
Revelation and the created universe both came from the same Creator God, but we don’t
adequately understand either one. The method of study described here allows use of a coherent
methodology for examination of both sources of evidence.
Science correcting biblical interpretation
There are other historical conflicts in which science also improved our understanding of
the Bible. In Darwin’s time it was thought that every animal and plant species was created fixed
and unchangeable. Darwin’s theory challenged this concept of fixity of species, and appeared to
weaken confidence in the Bible. Now with the benefit of careful study and the perspective of
hindsight we can see that nothing in the Bible can be legitimately claimed as evidence for fixity
3
of species. None of the wording in Genesis is specific enough to say whether species are fixed
or changeable. Fixity of species was another idea traceable to Greek philosophy, not to the
Bible. In the 19th century this conflict generated much confusion, but now we can see that
science has improved our biblical understanding by showing that species do change, and by
alerting us to notice that the Bible rejects large-scale evolution, but does not proclaim fixity of
species. It does not say that species, like the Mexican free-tailed bat, the Grevy Zebra, the
Galapagos Mockingbird, and the Sycamore tree never change.
Other Bible-believing scientists in Darwin’s day had already come to the conclusion that
organisms do change, and they limited the change to within created kinds, perhaps within
families. Even Linnaeus, who is generally described as an advocate of fixity of species,
gradually recognized evidence of change, not only of new species, but finally deciding that
change may have extended to the family level. Darwin apparently was unaware of the work of
these scientists.6
Another example comes from the work of early 20th century creationist George
McCready Price. Price rejected geologists’ claims of glaciation and of geological overthrusts, in
which mountain-sized masses of rocks were thought to have been pushed up, or thrust over the
top of younger rocks. He didn’t think these geological claims were consistent with his belief in
the biblical creation.7 At that time he did not have access to sufficient information to resolve that
conflict any other way. Now, with the benefit of more research and hindsight we can recognize
that the Bible never spoke to these issues at all, and Price was just hanging on to his limited
human ideas. Science helped others to recognize the reality of more extensive glaciers in the
past and of overthrusts. We can now realize that it is not surprising for a global geological
catastrophe to result in mountain-sized overthrusts and episodes of unbalanced climate. These
ideas, in reality, never were a genuine conflict between science and the Bible.
In these cases science helped us rid ourselves of ideas that came not from the Bible at all,
but from elsewhere (e.g. from Greek philosophy or our limited geological knowledge) and were
read into the Bible, between the lines, without our being aware of what we were doing. Also our
Bible study reveals that heliocentrism, speciation, glaciation and geological overthrusts are not in
conflict with the Bible themes of the Great Controversy and salvation history. The claims of
science on these issues are generally realistic and are not contrary to any biblical belief .8 These
issues have gone through stages 1 and 2, and are now, for us, in stage 3 – resolution. Careful
research, with benefit of the wider perspective provided by hindsight, has revealed that they are
not in conflict with the Bible.
Careful study, with hindsight, eliminates some false conflicts
Three items mentioned early in this paper have had a little different historical
background. One of these concerns the two creation stories. Study of the Hebrew text reveals
that the two creation accounts are not in conflict, but are complementary. For example, Genesis
two is talking about the origin of agricultural plants, not the general creation of plants described
in Genesis one. 9 This removes the supposed conflicts between the sequence of events in Genesis
one and two.
It has often been claimed that Christians all through the Middle Ages believed in a flat
earth, and that the Old Testament accepts a false, archaic concept of cosmology – describing the
sky as an inverted bowl, sitting on the flat earth, with the stars held in place by this bowl.
However, historical research has now shown that the Christian scholarly community always
knew the earth was round, and never did believe in a flat earth.10 The idea that Christians had
4
advocated a flat earth was invented by certain 19th century scholars, and unfortunately became
widely and uncritically accepted.
The myth of the Old Testament belief in the archaic, inverted bowl cosmology has had a
similar history. In Old Testament times there actually wasn’t any particular theory about
cosmology. It was in the 19th century that some scholars advocated their theory of the Old
Testament upside-down bowl cosmology. Many scholars now think the Bible advocates this
supposed error, but that is another concept that has been “read into” the Bible, and is not
supported by more careful study.11
In these three cases the conflict originated not directly from science or from the Bible, but
from erroneous claims by scholars that the Bible was scientifically incorrect. Research is now
bringing resolution by showing that the Bible and Bible-believers actually didn’t hold the beliefs
that some claimed they did, or that Genesis did not contain the contradictions that some claimed.
Confidence in the Bible yields insights for science
In some cases we have described, like cosmology and fixity of species, our growing
scientific understanding improved our interpretations of the Bible. Now we will turn to other
situations in which the conflict (stage 1) was resolved or is being resolved (stages 2 and 3) in the
opposite direction - confidence in the truth of the Bible has resulted in better insights for science.
In these cases seeming conflicts between science and the Bible suggested new hypotheses for
scientific study, which have resulted in successful scientific research and publication of insights
that might not have occurred otherwise.
In this type of research we do not attempt to explain supernatural actions by science, as
some critics have claimed. However, if a miracle (e.g. divinely caused, catastrophic global
flood) had a detectable effect on our earth (e.g. rapidly formed sediments), we should be able to
find evidence for that, especially if we are willing to benefit from what the Bible tells us.12
If the 1960’s and early 1970’s the fossil forests in Yellowstone National Park were
commonly portrayed as exhibit A showing that the Bible is wrong about time – the evidence in
Yellowstone demanded a very long time, for that one fossil deposit alone, in addition to many
other geological formations. It was believed that over a hundred forests grew, one above
another, with each forest being killed in turn by volcanic deposits. Each forest would take up to
a thousand years to grow and then be killed before the next forest could begin to grow on top of
its buried remains. However, research efforts by creationists accumulated evidence that the
forests did not grow one after the other as was claimed.13 It is more likely that the process
involved transport of dead trees into their position of burial by volcanic flows.
The Coconino Sandstone (SS) in northern Arizona is interpreted as an accumulation of
ancient desert sand dunes, which have been cemented into sandstone. The only fossils in the
Coconino SS are fossil animal tracks. These tracks have been argued to be evidence supporting
the desert origin of the Coconino sand deposits. However this evidence was investigated
because of a desire to understand how the Coconino SS fits into a global flood process. The
evidence resulting from this research can only be explained if the vertebrate animals made their
tracks while entirely underwater.14
At the bottom of the Coconino SS, where it rests on top of the red mudstone of the
Hermit Shale, are cracks in the top of the Hermit Shale. These cracks are up to 25 feet (8 meters)
deep, and are filled with the white Coconino Sandstone. In the geological literature these are
described as mud cracks, or desiccation cracks, caused by the drying of the aquatic mudstone
deposit when the climate changed and the area became a desert. This resulted in mud cracks that
5
were filled by the sand of the Coconino SS. This scenario has a number of problems, but
conventional geologic theory did not stimulate anyone to question it. Now research motivated
by the biblical account of a global flood has demonstrated that the cracks are not desiccation
cracks. The Hermit Shale was covered by the Coconino sand, and some time later the white
Coconino sand, still uncemented, was injected down into the red mudstone, apparently because
of pressure resulting from earthquake activity.15
In Peru the Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Formation contains many thousands of fossil whales,
buried in thick sediments composed of the skeletons of microscopic diatoms, and in sandstone.
Previous study by geologists and paleontologists interpreted the sediment as slowly
accumulating, with sediment only a few centimeters thick being added each thousand years.
Then a group of Bible-oriented creationists began to study this accumulation of fossil whales.
They became quickly aware of something that did not catch the attention of previous researchers.
The whales and other fossil vertebrates are exquisitely preserved, and this is not possible unless
the dead animals were quickly buried, so that each whale was buried in weeks or months, not
thousands of years.16
There are other examples that could be added to this list, and together these research
projects, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, demonstrate that a biblical worldview
can open our eyes to scientific insights that others could have found, but didn’t. I argue that
confidence in the Bible, if combined with careful scientific research procedures, can result in
scientific advance, not in spite of, but because of trust in the Bible account of origins and its
history of life on earth.17
On the other hand, there are in geology and paleontology other phenomena that cannot at
this time be explained by a Bible-based belief in short-age geology (the theory of only a few
thousand years between creation and the present). They seem to indicate that such a short time
for life on earth isn’t possible. Thus these are issues that are in stage 1 – conflict. What should
we conclude from this? There are at least two possibilities. We could conclude that the Bible is
wrong, and there have been millions of years of evolution. An alternative is to make a prediction
that there are scientific discoveries yet to be made, that will cause a reinterpretation of these lines
of evidence. For some phenomena we have discussed, continued research has already brought
them through stage 2 to stage 3, and the seeming conflicts with Scripture have been resolved.
Do we have reason to hope for more of this type of progress, or have we reached the end of the
line for stage 3 solutions? This will be considered in the next section.
Bible-based predictions, on phenomena that are still in stage 1
At the top of our list of stage 1 phenomena we will have to put radiometric dating.
Creationists have done some interesting work on this issue, but much of the body of evidence
and theory is still in direct conflict with a time scale of a few thousand years for life on earth.
How should we relate to this? To answer that we will first of all need to deal with a very
foundational question – since science gave us better understanding of the Bible in study of the
geocentric theory and of fixity of species, why not allow radiometric dates to show us that the
Bible was wrong about geological time? Why take a different approach to radiometric dating?
There is a significant difference between the implications of fixity of species and the
implications of conventional geological time. There is nothing in the Bible that conflicts with
the theory that species can change, within limits. In contrast, the implications of geological time
are very different.
6
Extensive study of the Bible confirms its central message - the story of the Great
Controversy between Christ and Satan and its imbedded message of salvation through Jesus.
Christianity is not based on theory, but is based on a series of connected events in history. God
created the universe sinless and without evil, pain and suffering, or death. God gave humans and
angels the gift of free will, even though he knew what it would cost him if we rebelled. Lucifer,
the highest angel in God’s government, did rebel and became Satan. Satan led Adam and Eve to
also rebel, opening up the earth and humans to the influence of Satan and the evil he has brought
upon us. Because of our sin, we need a redeemer, and Jesus lived and died to defeat Satan’s plan
to grasp control of the universe. The resurrected Jesus provides that ultimate gift of salvation
and eternal life in a recreated world without sin and evil. This series of events is a brief
description of the Great Controversy.18
The Great Controversy and salvation story holds together only if moral evil (human
greed, murder, theft e.g.) and natural evil (suffering and death from volcanoes, storms, and
earthquakes) are the result of human sin. If life evolved over millions of years before Adam and
Eve sinned, then moral and natural evil are not intruders in the universe, but were an integral part
of God’s creation process. Efforts to contrive a way out of this logic have not been successful.
For example, William Dembski tries to make evil the result of human sin, even though humans
and sin (in the standard geological model) did not exist until after millennia of death and evil on
earth.19 This simply illustrates the desperate efforts necessary if we reject a recent literal creation
but don’t wish to put the blame for evil on God.
Although there isn’t space here for a full discussion, I will argue that the theory of largescale evolution, with its millions of years for life on earth, is in direct conflict with Bible
Christianity and the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. If a literal one-week creation
is not true, then there were eons of evil, suffering, disease, natural evil, and death on earth before
the existence of any humans or any human sin.20 Also if the time scale in the Bible is not true,
that undermines confidence in the truth of other parts of Scripture. These are among the reasons
many of us hold to the biblical time scale and reject an evolution process that produces the major
types of organisms.
Trying to fit together two contradictory stories doesn’t work. If there was no Garden of
Eden and fall of Adam and Eve into sin, we have no rational reason to believe in the salvation
story. If there was no literal creation by God, there is no real basis for worship. The reason God
is worthy of our worship is because He is our Creator.21
Our attempts to develop scientific models of earth history must account for events in the
biblical Great Controversy theme. These events include the 7-day creation of life forms (before
the entrance of sin and evil on earth) and rapid geological processes (including a global flood
catastrophe) producing the geological record with its fossil evidence of complex life on earth, all
within the last few thousand years.22 This is the Biblical scenario that we seek to harmonize with
our geological hypotheses. Naturalistic science will reject this approach, but our goal is not
simply to follow the crowd, but to search for better answers to our questions.
Before accepting radiometric dating with its millions of years, go back to the Interface in
our diagram. The process illustrated in that diagram doesn’t allow science to dictate our
theology, or vice versa. Rather, the conflict between the standard geological time scale and a
straight forward reading of Scripture can challenge us to more careful study of both science and
the Bible. We are still in the conflict stage (stage 1) in this assessment of the issue of geological
time, but there is reason to search for a different result, rather than accept the geological time
scale. Our faith does not depend on resolving this conflict in our life time, but we have a God-
7
given opportunity to look for a solution. Why do scientists spend their lives doing research? It
is to search for insights and solutions. Why should Christian scientists do less?
I suggest God has a time table for what scientific solutions it will be good for us to have,
and when. The disciple Thomas was reminded that those with more faith were blessed by that
faith, but Jesus also cared for Thomas, and God will reveal more evidence to us when it will be
good for us, just as he did for Thomas.23
Radiometric dating is still in stage 1, with some stage 2 research. We have not resolved
the conflict, but we can make a prediction as to what we believe the outcome will be. I predict,
based partly on faith (religion) and partly because of evidence (science) that some time in the
future new evidence will show (science) that we are now seriously misinterpreting the
radiometric data, and it actually gives only relative age, not age in years. Scientists who take this
prediction seriously will be in the best position to understand the new evidence when and if it
appears (science) before Jesus returns to earth.24
Here are some additional predictions: ice cores will be found to not be annual layers,
some types of stromatolites (dome-like structures built up laminae after laminae by living
microorganisms) are not biological structures, but are produced by an entirely different process,
and additional features of the Coconino Sandstone will be shown to be incompatible with
production by desert dune processes. Also new understanding of the fossil record will eventually
reveal that it did not result from evolution of major life forms, as it now appears to. New
archeological evidence will sooner or later support the truth of the biblical account of the
Exodus. Rather than being problems for the Bible, the conflicts that led to these predictions
(predictions from faith + science, in the Interface) can be clues to productive research (science)
that can be done, with new scientific insights to be found. There are many more predictions like
these that can be made. If our best friend, Jesus, gives us faith-based clues that can lead to
scientific discoveries, the search is irresistible!
What if some of these predictions are falsified by future research? What would be the
implications of that? There are at least three possibilities. 1) For some items on the list
(stromatolites?), we may not be ready yet to make accurate predictions, just as Galileo and his
colleagues were not ready to understand cosmology and the Bible. 2) Evidence, at some point,
can appear to falsify a prediction, when the evidence actually is not adequate to do so. This is
fairly common in science. 3) If some of these predictions were truly falsified, and life was
shown to be from evolution over many millions of years, then Christianity would be falsified.
Christianity makes claims about history, and science can attempt to address some of these
claims. Should this make us afraid to do research? I say no, because God’s word is trustworthy.
If we have confidence in the Great Controversy and salvation history we can make these
predictions without fear or apology, as long as we don’t settle for quick answers, but maintain
the Bible as our foundation.
In addition to the examples we have discussed, some other phenomena already are
yielding evidence that is problematic for conventional scientific theories of origins. In other
words they represent progress in the stage 2 research process, moving closer to stage 3. We can
predict that further research based on confidence in Scripture will continue to move them toward
stage 3, resolution and insight. For example there are biochemical reasons for believing that
large-scale Darwinian evolution, producing new types of organisms with new body types and
significant new biological information is not possible. New types of organisms can only be
created by intelligent design.25 I predict that increasing evidence will, in time, firmly establish
this principle for anyone not fully committed to naturalism.
8
Other research in progress reveals reasons for doubting the long time spans in the
standard geological time scale. These include many fossil assemblages, like the Peruvian fossil
whales, that had to be buried rapidly to account for their preservation. Study of levels in the
geological column (fossil record) that are presumed to represent many millions of years with no
sedimentary deposits (paraconformities), reveals that they don’t show evidence of the passage of
such long time periods (Roth).26 If millions of years had elapsed at these intervals, they should
show much more evidence of erosion and other features that normally occur with the extensive
passage of time. The evidence is most consistent with a very short time span during their
formation. Additional research on a more detailed level is applying a similar concept to
individual rock layers, and also raising doubts about the slow accumulation of these rocks.
Objectivity and bias control
Could research motivated by faith perspectives introduce a bias into that research? Of
course it could, since any worldview, religious or scientific, can introduce a bias. Leaving
religious perspectives out of our science does not solve this problem.27 Careful research, with
acute awareness of different viewpoints on the subject and the quality control provided by
publication, when feasible, in peer-reviewed literature can manage those biases. If there are
biases that remain, they will in time become evident with the insight that often comes with
hindsight.
The process of thought and discovery described here seeks actively to integrate faith and
science in a cohesive search for truth. There are attempts to hold on to both the Bible and
conventional scientific theories by keeping science and religion in separate compartments, rather
than seeking an integration.28 These efforts typically result in science providing the facts and
religion seeking meaning from ancient myths and legends. However, when two sources address
the same topic and give opposite answers, they cannot both be true, and it doesn’t help to pretend
that we can hold on to both and still be logically coherent.
A role for imagination
Lets now discuss Joshua’s long day. Certainly this is going too far, to actually think that
the sun stood still that long, in spite of the totally predictable, finely balanced and very complex
pattern of movement of the heavenly bodies. But on the other hand, how much do we know
about the options that an infinite God has at his disposal? And maybe that sun trick wasn’t so
disruptive after all. If I try to imagine how it could be done if I had no physical limits, but was
not allowed to influence the movement of the sun or moon or the earth, here is a speculative
suggestion. A system of giant mirrors could be used to deflect the sun’s image, so that from a
human perspective the sun did stand still. Then later the mirrors could slowly move the sun back
into its normal schedule. Did God do it that way? Of course we have no idea (God is certainly
much more creative than us), but this scenario just illustrates how utterly futile it is for finite
humans to think we can decide what God can or cannot do. He created the “laws of nature” and
he knows how to use them to accomplish his will.
Conclusions
We could make a long list of present and historical conflicts between science and the
Bible, much longer than the list we have been discussing here. We could then list them
according to which stage they are currently in. Some would be in stage 1, still in the conflict
(and maybe confusion) stage. Others are in stage 2, actively being studied with progress towards
9
resolution. Others are in stage 3 – they were once thought to be genuine conflicts, but diligent,
honest Bible study and scientific research has revealed that there is no conflict at all. The
seeming conflict has been resolved and new insights gained.
The real issue is not whether science falsifies the Bible, or whether we can prove our
beliefs (finding silver bullets), but rather where is each issue in this three stage process from
conflict to resolution. I make this claim partly on faith, but partly from the experience of
watching this process for several decades, as a variety of issues moved through the three stages
to stage 3, and then we discovered new issues that took their place in stage 1 and began their
journey through the three stages.
Some conflicts, like the Galileo affair have taken considerable time and hindsight to
reach stage 3. But with experience in applying the thinking process described above as the
Interface, it becomes easier to recognize the potential for new predictions that can be pursued by
thorough research, toward resolution. If we make the Bible our standard, the Bible is not on trial
but becomes the means of leading us toward new scientific findings. Scientific interpretations
are not tested directly by the Bible (see the figure earlier in this paper), but the Bible provides the
trustworthy foundation that facilitates finding areas in science that need reexamination.
When we encounter a seeming conflict between Scripture and science, this directs our
attention to the aspect of scientific interpretation needing reexamination. This begins the journey
from stage 1 toward stage 3. That journey will require careful Bible study to be sure we haven’t
misunderstood its message. Meanwhile, we pursue analysis of the science to seek alternate
hypotheses and predictions that can be examined with scientific research (stage 2). This may be
a challenging process, which is to be expected in the exploration of new territory. When a new
explanation for the data is found, and it stands up to critical scrutiny, we have reached stage 3.
Incorrect scientific ideas often do get corrected by science, without help from Scripture,
but the process described here can give us an advantage and considerably speed up the process.
This is especially true in the study of origins, which is especially affected by the dominant
scientific philosophy of naturalism, which cannot accept any explanations that depend on, or
even imply divine involvement in earth history. If we allow the Bible to open our eyes to new
ideas, we can have an advantage in seeing things in nature that others don’t see because of their
naturalistic bias.
References
1
M. Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History (Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 1989).
2
N. Hetherington, (ed.) Encyclopedia of Cosmology: Historical, Philosophical, and Scientific Foundations
of Modern Cosmology (New York, NY: Garland Publishing, 1993).
3
J. Gribben, Science: A History (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2002). M. Dorn, Das Problem der
Autonomie der Naturwissenschaften bei Galilei (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2000). W. Milan, Galileo: the
strange facts in a famous story (Explorezone.com/columns/space/1999/august_galileo.htm 1999). M. Finocchiaro,
The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989).
4
M. Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History (Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 1989) p. 5.
5
L. R. Brand, Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by
Intelligent Design. 2nd edition. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009). L. Brand, Beginnings:
Are science and Scripture partners in the search for origins? (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 2006). A lay-person
oriented book on creation and evolution.
6
P. Landgren, On the origin of ‘species’: Idealogical roots of the species concept. In S. Sherer, ed., Typen
des Lebens (p. 47-64) (Berlin: Pascal-Verlag [Studium Integrale], 1993).
10
7
H. W. Clark, Crusader for Creation (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1966). G. M. Price, The New Geology
(Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1923). G. M. Price, Illogical Geology (Los Angeles: The Modern Heretic Co., 1906).
8
According to mainline science, some of these processes require long time periods. However, whether this
is correct is not a settled matter.
9
R. Younker, God’s Creation: Exploring the Genesis Story (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1999). R.
Younker, Genesis 2: a second creation account? P. 69-78 In: J. T. Baldwin (ed.) Creation, Catastrophe, and
Calvary (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 2000). R. Younker, How can we interpret the
first chapters of Genesis, P. 69-77 In: H. Rasi and J. Gibson (eds.) Understanding Creation (Nampa, ID: Pacific
Press, 2011).
10
S. J. Gould, 1994. The persistently flat earth. Natural history, v. 103, (Mar. 1994): 12, 14–19. J. B.
Russell, Inventing The Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1997).
11
R. W. Younker, The myth of the solid heavenly dome: another look at the Hebrew (Raquia). Andrews
University Seminary Studies (In press).
12
L. R. Brand, 2009. Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by
Intelligent Design. 2nd edition (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009).
13
H. G, Coffin,The organic levels of the Yellowstone petrified forests. Origins 6(2):71-82 (1979). H. G.
Coffin, Orientation of trees in the Yellowstone petrified forests. Journal of Paleontology 50:539-543 (1976). H. G.
Coffin, Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington. Geology 11:298-299 (1983). H. G. Coffin, Erect floating
stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington; reply. Geology 11:734 (1983). A. V. Chadwick, and T. Yamamoto. A
paleoecological analysis of the petrified trees in the Specimen Creek area of Yellowstone National Park, Montana,
USA. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 45:39-48 (1984).
14
L. Brand, L. Field and laboratory studies on the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) vertebrate footprints and
their paleoecological implications. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28:25-38 (1979).
(Reprinted in: Terrestrial Trace Fossils. W. A. S. Sarjeant, ed., Benchmark Papers in Geology, 76:126-139 [1983]).
L. Brand, Reply: fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for
underwater origin. Geology 20:668-670 (1992). L. Brand, Variations in salamander trackways resulting from
substrate differences. Journal of Paleontology 70:1004-1010 (1996). L. Brand and T. Tang, Fossil vertebrate
footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin. Geology
19:1201-1204 (1991).
15
J. H. Whitmore, J. H. and R. Strom, Sand injectites at the base of the Coconino Sandstone, Grand
Canyon, Arizona (USA). Sedimentary Geology, 230:46-59 (2010).
16
R. L. Esperante-Caamano, L. R. Brand, A. Chadwick, and O. Poma, Taphonomy of fossil whales in the
diatomaceous sediments of the Miocene/Pliocene Pisco Formation, Peru. pp. 337-343 In: De Renzi, M., M. Alonso,
M. Belinchon, E. Penalver, P. Montoya, and A. Marquez-Aliaga (eds.). Current Topics on Taphonomy and
Fossilization (International Conference Taphos 2002. 3rd Meeting on Taphonomy and Fossilization, Valencia,
Spain). Brand, L., R. Esperante, A. Chadwick, O. Poma, and M. Alomia. 2004. Fossil whale preservation implies
high diatom accumulation rate in the Miocene-Pliocene Pisco Formation of Peru. Geology, 32:165-168.
17
L. Brand, How do we know what is true? Journal of Adventist Education, 73 (2):16-23 (December
2010/January 2011). L. R. Brand, Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins
by Intelligent Design. 2nd edition. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009).
18
E. G. White, The Great Controversy (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1911).
19
W. A. Dembski, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (Nashville, TN: B &
H Publishing Group, 2009).
20
L. Brand, A biblical perspective on the philosophy of science. Origins, Number 59: 6-42 (2006).
(grisda.org)
21
Revelation 4:11.
22
E. G. White, The Great Controversy (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1911).
23
John 20:24-29.
24
L. R. Brand, Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by
Intelligent Design. 2nd edition. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009). A. Roth, Origins: Linking
Science and Scripture (Silver Spring, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1998).
25
S. C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell. (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2009). L. Brand, The Scope and
Limits of the Evolutionary Process. A chapter in a book from Andrews University, Faculty Faith (in press). M. J.
Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996). M. J.
Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. (New York, N.Y: Free Press, 2007). L. P.
11
Lester, and R. G. Bohlin. The Natural Limits to Biological Change. 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: Probe Books; Word
Publishing, 1989).
26
A. A. Roth, Those gaps in the sedimentary layers. Origins 15:75-92 (1988). (grisda.org)
27
N. Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway
Books, 2005).
28
e.g. see S. J. Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. (New York: Ballantine
Publishing Group, 1999).
12