Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.
This will be a recurring question on this website.
The term "scientist" was coined by English scholar and philosopher of science William Whewell in 1833, first appearing in print in 1834, to replace inadequate terms like "natural philosophers" and create a more fitting title for people engaged in scientific inquiry, partly inspired by the need to describe brilliant women like Mary Somerville [Google]
Prior to this, "scientists" were called "natural philosophers"
Proverbs 1:7
Timor Domini principium scientiae.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
Proverbs 2:6
Ex ore Domini scientia et prudentia.
For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
Proverbs 18:15
Cor prudens possidebit scientiam.
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge, for the ears of the wise seek it out.
I Timotheum 6:20
O Timothee, depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates, et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae,
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Verses could be multiplied.
Today "science" means atheism. Modern "science" self-consciously excludes obedient faith. You must not, cannot, speak of the fear of the Lord in a modern science class.
Nobody in 1700 would say Isaac Newton was not a "scientist" because he was a "creationist." Today, Newton would probably not be granted a Ph.D. or given a professorship in any university because he rejected "methodological naturalism."
The work of "science" in the Christian sense goes back to the first commandment given by God in Scripture: "Exercise Dominion" (Genesis 1:26-28), "work and protect the garden" (Genesis 2:15) and classify the animals (Genesis 2:19). What some call "The Dominion Mandate" could also be called "The Scientific Mandate." There are many practical and Christian vocations in what was once called "Mineralogy." Theology was once known as "The Queen of the Sciences." Natural science could be called "Natural Theology."
Berkeley has a website called "Understanding Science."
We can begin with a basic question:
Implicit in Berkeley's answer is: science is only "natural," and excludes the "super-natural."
I think this is a different question from this:
Answer:
| Your digital alarm clock, the weather report, the asphalt you drive on, the bus you ride in, your decision to eat a baked potato instead of fries, your cell phone, the antibiotics that treat your sore throat, the clean water that comes from your faucet, and the light that you turn off at the end of the day have all been brought to you courtesy of science. The modern world would not be modern at all without the understandings and technology enabled by science.
Just for starters, without modern science, there would be:
Science informs public policy and personal decisions on energy, conservation, agriculture, health, transportation, communication, defense, economics, leisure, and exploration. It’s almost impossible to overstate how many aspects of modern life are impacted by scientific knowledge. |
None of this practical science has anything to do with evolution. Six-day young-earth creationists can do any kind of science that any evolutionist can do -- except make up evolutionary theories.
The modern science of "geology" emerged during the Industrial Era two centuries ago, as industry dug into the earth and learned about fossils and stratigraphy. Some geologists learned how to serve consumers. Some developed anti-Christian science fiction theories.
True science (knowledge) comes out of a desire to obey the "Dominion Mandate" of Genesis 1:26-28. Under capitalism, "The Customer is King," and capitalists are the servants -- not the bosses -- of the consumers. Knowledge comes about in the quest to serve consumers. Mortenson writes about the Scriptural geologists, 1776-1830:
Certainly, Young, Rhind, Fairholme, and Murray demonstrated genuine interest in geological science by their purely scientific journal articles or books. In particular, Young stated in his first geology book that he hoped his geological research would contribute to more effective and profitable mining and farming and industrial applications of minerals. Especially in his second book, Fairholme was attempting also to contribute to geological knowledge by making new observations and interpretations and advancing new arguments for the Flood. Similarly, Murray was concerned about practical, applied geology, evidenced in his numerous contributions to the Mining Journal and his invention of a safety lamp. Rhind wrote several purely geological or geographical books designed to stimulate further geological research by others. But they [Scriptural geologists] also wrote on the subject out of the conviction that the old-earth theories were leading the geologists into a bewildering labyrinth that would impede the progress of true geological knowledge, by locking observations and interpretations into a false theoretical framework, thereby blinding geologists from seeing what they might otherwise see.3
Closely related to the study of science is the teaching of it. Ure, Murray, and Rhind had strong interests and involvement in education. They believed that education in science contributed to improving man’s standard of living, sharpening the mind and deepening a person’s reverence for the Creator. By his lecturing and writing, Ure wanted to raise the level of general scientific knowledge of artisans and industrial workers. Murray was a nationally known lecturer, especially in mechanics’ institutes, and many of his pamphlets were written to help spread scientific knowledge among the general public. Similarly, Rhind lectured and wrote to contribute to the education of secondary school students as well as the general public.
Obviously, the scriptural geologists were also motivated by their Christian faith.
But at this time, which Mortenson calls "The Great Turning Point," there emerged a class of "geologists" who were more interested in pushing an evolutionary view of life. Men like Charles Lyell led to Darwin.
There is no reason why a young-earth creationist cannot be a "scientist" or serve consumers in a technical or professional field as well as an evolutionist.
I asked ChatGPT:
I have a question about the importance of beliefs about the age of the earth. Suppose I am a tunnel-builder, and need to hire a geologist. I have two candidates who seem equally qualified, but one is a creationist who believes the earth was created 6000 years ago, and the other is an atheist who believes the earth was created 4 billion years ago. Would their conflicting beliefs about ancient history have any bearing on their ability to help me build a tunnel today?
Great question—very practical and insightful. In terms of building a tunnel today, the age of the earth as a belief—6000 years vs. 4 billion years—generally has no direct bearing on a geologist's technical ability to help you with your project. What matters for tunnel-building are things like:
Knowledge of local rock formations
Understanding of soil stability, water tables, fault lines, etc.
Ability to conduct site surveys
Competence with modern geological methods and tools
Experience in engineering geology or geotechnical risk assessment
As long as both candidates are trained in and make use of the standard methods of geological analysis used in industry (which are based on observable and testable data, not historical assumptions), either one could be competent for the task.
However, there are a few nuances worth noting:
1. Professional Integrity vs. Personal Beliefs
A young-earth creationist might believe, for religious reasons, that the Grand Canyon formed during Noah's flood. But in the workplace, they could still use conventional dating and stratigraphic methods because those methods have predictive value and are standard in the field. Many creationists working in applied science fields do this daily. If the creationist insists on rejecting standard geological interpretations in the field, that could be a red flag—not because of their belief per se, but because it might interfere with their professional methodology.
Similarly, the atheist might hold to a naturalistic worldview, but as long as they also base decisions on empirical evidence and best practices, worldview doesn’t interfere.
2. Interpretive vs. Operational Science
This is a distinction often raised by creationists themselves:
Operational science: Involves testable, repeatable processes in the present (like measuring rock strength, identifying fault lines).
Historical science: Involves reconstructing the past (like dating the formation of a mountain range).
Tunnel-building relies overwhelmingly on operational science. Therefore, conflicting beliefs about historical geology don’t typically affect tunnel engineering.
3. Communication and Team Dynamics
In rare cases, if a belief system causes a candidate to reject established methods or creates tension with clients, engineers, or regulators, it might raise practical concerns. But if the person can separate their personal beliefs from their professional practice, it should not be an issue.
Bottom Line:
If both candidates use the same professional tools and standards, their beliefs about the age of the earth are irrelevant to your tunnel. What matters is their competence, reliability, and practical decision-making in the here and now.
If, however, either candidate allows personal beliefs—religious or anti-religious—to override professional standards, that’s a problem, but not because of the belief—it’s because of a lack of professionalism.
Six-day young-earth creationists can do practical geology as well as atheists:
So at the same time some "scientists" are helping cure diseases and increase food production, other "scientists" are giving their atheistic explanations for the origin and meaning of the entire universe, which is more of a religious or philosophical matter than testable science. An atheistic theory of origins does not raise your standard of living like those involved in exercising dominion under the "Scientific Mandate" (Genesis 1:26-28), a mandate to gain practical knowledge in the service of others.
According to the Bible true religion is raising the standard of living of the weak (James 1:27; Matthew 25:31-46). True worship is gratitude to the Creator (Romans 1:25). Evolution is the worship of the creature rather than the Creator. You can call it "science," but it's really "religion" in Tillich's sense of "ultimate concern."
Science: how the world works
History: how the world came to be.
Science is observable and repeatable
Hiistory is not observable and not repeatable.