Scientists engage creation empirically rather than philosophically; they seek knowledge through sense experience. Yet this distinction between empirical and philosophical research is relative, not absolute. Scientists aren’t merely empirical in their research. They come to their work with theological and philosophical assumptions.

They (even atheists!) interpret the empirical data using broad conceptual and philosophical categories. Though philosophers and scientists have similarities, they use distinct tools and emphasize distinct aspects of creation.

Characteristics of Science

Scientists go out in nature to study its inner mecha­nisms—looking at cells under a microscope, conducting clinical trials on a new emphysema drug, or studying rock samples in Yosemite National Park to uncover past geological processes. Scientists are empirical when they make observations, gather data, and carry out experi­ments others can reproduce.

Scientists aren’t merely empirical in their research. They come to their work with theological and philosophical assumptions.

Good science also aims to be objective. Any valid scientific theory must be objective in how it sorts through the empirical data, rather than simply cherry-picking. Here’s one example of science failing to be objective: Physicians in the 19th century thought they could identify human personalities by bumps and depressions on people’s skulls. This approach, called phrenology, was hailed as the future in fighting crime, but it was eventually discredited.

The problem was that scientists were interpreting the data in a highly selective way. There was no real objectivity. The scientists zeroed in on physical data supporting their theory and ignored the rest. Conversely, good science tries to be as objective as possible by weighing all the available evidence.

Finally, not just any interpretation of the physical evidence will do. Scientific theories should have a rational connection to the data. Astrology, for example, claims we can predict world events by studying the positions of stars and planets. Ronald Reagan’s wife, Nancy, regularly consulted a San Francisco astrologer, Joan Quigley, for guidance while in the White House, relying on Quigley’s astrological advice to such an extent that it affected the timing of presidential speeches, appearances, meetings with heads of state, airplane travel schedules, and even discussion topics.

I wonder how Reagan’s vice president, the cabinet, and the White House staff would have reacted had they known. They would’ve been shocked, surely, and rightly so, since there’s no rational connection between Reagan’s life and the movement of celestial bodies. Quigley’s astrology was pseudoscience.

Christian Assumptions Make Science Possible

Far from being antithetical to faith, Christian assumptions about creation make science possible.

For one, Christianity assumes that animals like seahorses, koalas, and flamingos are part of God’s creation rather than part of God’s nature, that animals and their ecosystems are real and separate from the divine nature. Sometimes called the Creator-creature distinction, this assumption provides the basis for reliable science.

Far from being antithetical to faith, Christian assumptions about creation make science possible.

Historically, many people have believed creation is divine. Pantheists, for instance, teach that nature is divine and thus sacred. But if we believe nature is divine, then we would be less likely to investigate it empirically, lest we blaspheme God. The pantheistic outlook would lead us to pursue spiritual, not empirical, explanations for natural phenomena. In fact, science emerged in Europe in large part because Christians recognized that nature isn’t divine.

Furthermore, Christians affirm the fundamental goodness of creation. This belief that creation is good implies it has intrinsic value and is worthy of empirical study. This theological assumption was instrumental in the development of science in the West (whether scientists today recognize it or not). Many people in history, such as the ancient Greek Gnostic philoso­phers, had a different view of creation; they thought that physical matter is evil—only spiritual reality is good. Nothing like empirical science could have developed in a Gnostic culture. Thankfully, Christianity operated by a different logic.

Irenaeus, the second-­century church father, blew the whistle on Gnosticism, arguing that since the eternal Son took on human flesh, we should never disparage the physical creation. For him, the incarnation proves the goodness of matter. Better yet, Irenaeus argued, Jesus not only was incarnate but rose again from the dead bodily. In this way, the Son of God bound himself to creation forever. Jesus is embodied even now in his heavenly session at the Father’s right hand, and he’ll be embodied when we see him face-to-face in the new heavens and new earth.

Science Worth Studying

Because of these gospel truths, early Christians were convinced that nature is deeply valuable and worthy of study. And their belief in the goodness of matter paved the way for the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century. Scientific inquiry also owes much to the Christian assumption that creation is knowable, rational, and dependable. These facts about our world make the most sense in a theistic framework where the underlying coherence of creation mirrors God’s wisdom.

In ancient cultures, the cosmos was seen as chaotic, changing at the whim of testy gods who might zap you when they got angry. The Christian view of the world isn’t like that at all; creation itself has an intrinsic rationality that derives from God. Scientists like René Descartes (1596–1650) and Isaac Newton believed that “laws of nature” describe regularities originating from God’s mind. Samuel Clarke, one of Newton’s allies, wrote that the “course of nature, truly and properly speaking, is nothing else but the will of God producing certain effects in a continued, regular, constant, and uniform manner.”

Remove the Christian God from the equation, and science reduces to a set of laws without a lawgiver.

Remove the Christian God from the equation, and science reduces to a set of laws without a lawgiver.

Worse yet, without God, the existence of real scientists would be impossible to explain, people like Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. Their capacity to think rationally, draw connections between things, and examine facets of the physical world—all of it would be deeply mysterious. Where did these genius minds get their abilities?

The standard answer is that our cognitive capacities emerged from a long evolutionary process. But how could we trust our scientific observations if we don’t know that our cognitive abilities evolved to discover truth about the world? What if they evolved unreliably?

Christians have a good reason to trust empirical observa­tions. In our view, science is possible because God made humanity in his image. It makes all the difference in the world, for truth itself is grounded in God; “the LORD is the true God” (Jer. 10:10), and his very words are truth (John 17:17). The human mind’s bent toward truth reflects God’s mind.