If Christianity is true, we must do our scientific work in light of the truth that God reveals himself in creation (general revelation) and in Scripture (special revelation). We must be scientific realists, not antirealists; we must be open to God acting supernaturally and not merely operate as methodological naturalists. Above all, we must reject any ultimate contradiction between the order of creation and the witness of Scripture. As the medieval thinkers used to say, God is the author of two books—the book of Scripture and the “book” of nature.

But is that not precisely where Christians get into trouble? We confess that Scripture is breathed out by God and is thus infallible. For this reason, we end up with conflicts between our cherished doctrines and accepted science. To put a fine point on it, aren’t creationists to blame for manufacturing the irresolvable tensions between science and faith?

Defining Creationism

“Creationist” is an ambiguous term. We often use it to describe young­-earth creationists, who interpret the Genesis creation account literally and believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. But here I want to use the term more broadly to mean Christians who believe God is the Creator. As Jim Stump observes, all Christians are creationists, but they disagree “about when things were created and whether current scientific theories are correct descriptions of the process of creation or whether they conflict with biblical affirmations on creation.”

Aren’t creationists to blame for manufacturing the irresolvable tensions between science and faith?

Young­-earth creationists tend to handle conflicts between science and faith by resisting the scientific consensus. By comparison, old­ earth creationists accept the conclusions of astronomy, physical cosmology, stratigraphy, coral reef study, glaciol­ogy, and related fields. Yet they reject macroevolution, especially the evolution of human beings. Meanwhile, evolutionary creationists see minimal conflict between evolutionary biology and Scripture’s witness.

The scientific and theological differences between young-­earth and old-­earth creationists are weighty, and the differences between both of them and evolutionary creationists are even weightier. We don’t have time to sort things out here. The more relevant point is that from the perspective of the majority scientific community, creationists as a whole—and young-­earth creationists above all—aren’t worth taking seriously.

But don’t imagine mean-­faced biologists cracking their knuckles to beat up on creationists. Rather, the typical scientist is focused on doing good science. Secular scientists often have no overt agenda against faith and couldn’t care less about creationists’ intramural debates. They simply dismiss Christian views of science, especially if they’ve encountered bad arguments—or bad attitudes—from uninformed believers.

Common Ground in Intelligent Design

The intelligent-design movement is controversial in academia because of its central thesis that the origin of some features of nature requires a mind—an intelligent designer. This movement emerged after Phillip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial (1991) exploded onto the scene. Michael Behe made the case for “irreducible complexity” in Darwin’s Black Box (1996), and William Dembski defended concepts like the “design filter” and “specific complexity.”

Since the intelligent-design movement focuses on scientific rather than religious arguments, young-­earth and old-­earth creationists can work alongside atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists who embrace the design thesis.

But here is what’s most striking about these approaches: None of them assumes science and faith are incompatible. Even the most ardent young-­earth creationist believes Scripture is wholly consistent with natural science. Aside from their different convictions about the age of the earth and human origins, creationists have other beliefs that diverge from the scientific consensus, like the belief that humans have souls and that God performs miracles.

Creationists don’t reject science outright; rather, they question particular scientific interpretations of the physical evidence.

Secular Science vs. Creationism?

Nonreligious scientists never truly escape the theological context of their scientific work. While they may not be openly hostile to creationists, they’re certainly not religiously “neutral.” They rely on unspoken Christian assumptions. They do science without acknowledging that doing science at all depends on God the Creator and an ordered creation. They’re beneficiaries of God’s common grace. Scripture also tells us they’re actively suppressing general revelation (Rom. 1:18–23).

Creationists don’t reject science outright; rather, they question particular scientific interpretations of the physical evidence.

The bottom line: Western bias toward scientism has created persistent tension and controversy between mainstream scientists and creationists.

Many scientists still dismiss young-earth creationists as prime examples of scientific denialism. They lump them in with flat-earthism and wild conspiracy theories. Many see Christians who reject evolution as ostriches with their heads in the sand, denying the facts and encouraging post-truth disinformation.

But such judgments are uncharitable and too hasty. To be sure, young-earth creationists usually resist reinterpreting Scripture to resolve conflicts between science and faith. In their view, whenever our best science and core doctrines conflict, Christians must prioritize what the Bible teaches.

Young-Earth’s Rational Basis

Regardless of what we think of the young-earth position, it’s important to see why disagreeing with the consensus on the earth’s age or evolution can be rational for Christians. After all, how do scientists arrive at the belief that the earth is old or that evolution happened? They examine physical data, carry out experiments, and then draw inferences about the distant past.

For example, they look at tree rings to infer past climate conditions or study fossils to infer the evolution of species over millions of years. These scientific claims about the remote past are based on indirect empirical evidence; scientists are drawing historical inferences from the empirical data.

Western bias toward scientism has created persistent tension and controversy between mainstream scientists and creationists.

Make no mistake, this kind of inferential reasoning is a legitimate mode of science. But compared with scientific claims based on direct empirical data, historical scientific inferences are more prone to error. They work at a higher, complex level that coordinates different theoretical ideas. As a result, they’re more likely to carry unrecognized religious and philosophical baggage. Claims by the historical sciences are less certain and more open to critique.

Given the biblical testimony and the structure of Christian theology, young-earth believers are fully rational in their disagreement with an old-earth view and in their conviction that God created a functional universe in six days.