Do Biblical Presuppositions Make Creation Science Unscientific?

“I don’t mean to dismiss the religious beliefs of Christians. I do, however, when they’re attacking the evolutionary theory. It’s anti-intellectual. It’s anti-science. It’s anti-thinking.”1

This was the response from Miami University zoology professor Douglas Meikle in 2008 when Answers in Genesis launched Answers Research Journal (ARJ). As the now editor in chief of ARJ, I’m a bit baffled when I read what he thinks is one of the goals of ARJ—to attack evolutionary theory. On the ARJ website, we state,

ARJ disseminates research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science by providing readers with the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and more, showing how science is consistent with and confirms the biblical account of origins in Genesis.2

Nothing here about attacking evolution. What we desire is to build the creation model. Of course, that may involve critiques of evolutionary ideas, but our focus as stated on the website is to be “a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.”3

Meikle seems to think anyone critical of evolution is being unscientific, and while he says he’s not trying to dismiss religious beliefs of Christians, that is exactly what he’s doing. He’s essentially saying if you start with biblical presuppositions you aren’t thinking. Is ARJ then a repository of articles that are “anti-science” and “anti-intellectual?” Is creation science not really science?

The Value of Peer Review

I want to focus on one of the keys in the publication of good scientific research: peer review. The well-respected publishing company Wiley defines peer review as,

The process where experts from a specific field or discipline evaluate the quality of a peer’s research to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. It is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scholarly research.4

Peer review is an integral part of the publication process for ARJ just like it is for many other technical journals. When a paper is submitted to ARJ, it follows this path:

• Submission: The paper is submitted by author.
• Initial screening: The paper is reviewed by the ARJ Editorial Board. This board consists of myself and other researchers at AiG.
• Peer review: If the paper passes the initial screening, it is reviewed by two or more reviewers with expertise on the paper’s topic.
• Reviewers usually have a master’s and/or a PhD in a field related to the topic of the paper and work at universities (both secular and Christian) or in industry.
• ARJ follows a double-blind review process—authors are anonymous to reviewers, and reviewers are anonymous to authors.
• Evaluation and author revisions: The editor in chief evaluates reviewers’ critiques of the paper and decides to either reject the paper if the reviews are negative or to send to the author for revisions if positive.
• Final review: Once the author completes revisions, the editor in chief reviews the paper again to assure appropriate changes have been made and/or if additional review by experts needs to happen. If the author is unwilling to make revisions based on the peer review, the paper is rejected.
• Publication: The paper is published on our website.

A unique aspect of ARJ’s peer review is that it is double-blind. The predominant model of technical journals is single-blind review. In single-blind, the reviewers know who the authors are, but the authors don’t know who the reviewers are. There are pros and cons to both types of review, but the double-blind process assures much less bias in publication, which is why we prefer to use it.

What Role Do Presuppositions Have in Peer Review?

People think science is objective. It is when done well, but the problem is that scientists are not! A recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences listed the many problems with peer review and among them were the lack of objectivity by reviewers. They stated,

Some reviewers indulge in a variety of self-serving behaviors, even obstructing the publication of articles unfavorable to their own research and self-appropriating ideas from unpublished manuscripts accessed during peer review. Biases that favor or disfavor research topics, institutions, geographic origin, and demographic characteristics of authors or participants threaten the ideal of impartiality in peer review.5

No one is unbiased. The question is, what bias are you biased with? This is especially important concerning historical science. There are two main categories of science: observational science and historical science.

No one is unbiased. The question is, what bias are you biased with?

Observational science is science we do in the lab every day and is observable, testable, repeatable, and verifiable. It uses questions and observations of the universe and the scientific method of formulating a hypothesis, doing experiments, and seeing if they support or don’t support the original hypothesis. It’s not dependent on presuppositions about the past because it can be studied and verified in the present. Observational science gives us helpful medications, fascinating discoveries, and amazing technology.

Historical science deals with events that have happened in the past. It’s not observable, testable, repeatable, or verifiable. It doesn’t use the scientific method because no one can repeat millions of years of evolution in the lab, just like no one can repeat God creating in six 24-hour days just 6,000 years ago in the lab. Both evolution and creation fall into the category of historical science. It’s dependent on presuppositions about the past because it can’t be studied and verified in the present. If historical science can’t be observed, tested, repeated, or verified, how can there be any scientific journals dealing with the topics of evolution or biblical creation?

Let me give you an example from my own field of genetics. One of the main mechanisms of Darwinian evolution is mutations. They supposedly provide the raw material to generate new structures and functions, leading one kind of organism to evolve into a different kind of organism over millions of years like dinosaurs evolving into birds. While I can’t observe that happening in the lab because of the time factor, we can study mutations in organisms in the present and observe the outcomes. I’ve studied bacteria with beneficial mutations that make them resistant to antibiotics. They are beneficial to the bacteria in the presence of antibiotics, but they also cause a degradation of specific function(s) in the bacteria.6 I could share MANY more examples, but the fact is that mutations aren’t causing the formation of new structures and functions. If mutations can’t do this in the present, they also cannot have done so in the past. Time is irrelevant; a genetic mechanism by which evolution can occur is needed, and it just doesn’t exist. But again, in creation science, we don’t just want to critique evolutionary ideas, we want to build the creation model.

The late Dr. Kevin Anderson and I coauthored a paper on the role of beneficial mutations in bacteria, and we came to this conclusion, which also opens the door to further research in this area:

As such, beneficial mutations of bacteria fit concisely within a creation model where (a) biological systems and functions were fully formed at creation, (b) subsequent mutations can provide conditional benefits that enable the organism to survive harsh post-Fall conditions even though the mutation is generally degenerative, and (c) most bacteria need the ability to rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources.7

Both creationists and evolutionists use observational science in many fields like biology, geology, astronomy, etc. to help them evaluate aspects of historical science and publish that in technical journals. Why then do they come to such different conclusions about the past? They are looking at the same evidence in the present but have different interpretations of that evidence because they have different presuppositions about the past.

Former ARJ editor in chief, Dr. Andrew Snelling, in an interview about ARJ in 2008, summarized the topic of presuppositional bias well:

Every scientist has to make assumptions or has beliefs about how the evidence fits together. If it’s legitimate for [evolutionary biologists] to have their belief system on which they base their science, it’s just as legitimate for a Christian to have the Bible as their belief system for which they base their science.8

No one has a time machine to go back in the past and see how the earth, universe, and living things have come to be in the present. Our presuppositions determine how we look at the evidence we have in the present and what we think about how it came to be in the past. The real question becomes what our presuppositions are grounded in: the infallible Word of the infallible God or fallible ideas from fallible man?

Can Presuppositional Bias Hamper Peer Review?

Definitely! Let’s evaluate a couple examples.

Mary Schweitzer and Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer is famous for the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Bones that are millions of years old should not contain any soft tissue. Her PhD advisor, Jack Horner, said of Schweitzer’s discovery, “Most people were very skeptical. Frequently in our field people come up with new ideas, and opponents [meaning other evolutionary scientists] say, ‘I just don’t believe it.’ She was having a hard time publishing in journals.”9 Schweitzer herself said, “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible. I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”10

Schweitzer had done good observational science to show her discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones was real. Yet reviewers of her papers were so beholden to their evolutionary presuppositional bias that they were refusing to give positive reviews and publish her papers. They knew the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones was consistent with a much more recent formation of the fossils and a biblical creation time frame than the evolutionary one.

Alan Feduccia and Bird Evolution

Paleornithologist Alan Feduccia believes that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. While he does believe they share a common ancestor, he doesn’t believe birds directly evolved from dinosaurs. This puts him in the crosshairs of current scientific consensus. Feduccia stated, “Now the theory that ‘birds are living dinosaurs,’ specifically ‘birds are maniraptoran theropods’ (the ‘BMT hypothesis’), predominates, and advocates of alternatives have largely been silenced, despite their growing numbers.”11 And why does the scientific community try to silence scientists like Feduccia? Because of presuppositional bias that holds strongly to one model of bird evolution and does not appear open to others.

Creation scientists must be careful not to fall into this trap as well. In this case, it’s not so much the problem of presuppositional bias but model bias. Biblical creation scientists should all agree that God created in six 24-hours days, the creation week occurred approximately 6,000 years ago, Noah’s Flood was a global flood, and so on. However, creation scientists develop different models to explain things like where the post-Flood boundary occurs, length of the Ice Age, genetic mechanisms leading to speciation, how distant starlight reached earth in the thousands-of-years time frame, etc. We must hold on to the facts in Genesis tightly but our models loosely.

Is Holding to Biblical Presuppositions Unscientific?

Many scientists think that starting with biblical presuppositions means a person cannot validly assess scientific claims. Steven Novella, physician and associate professor of medicine at Yale University, said,

Science is about discovering the nature of reality—what is, what happened in the past, and how stuff works. Scientific conclusions must be based upon evidence and adhere to the demands of logic. This requires that conclusion flow from evidence, that beliefs and claims are slaves to logic and evidence and can be altered as needed to accommodate new or better evidence.

It is simply not possible for legitimate science to reverse this process—to begin with a conclusion and subvert facts and logic to this belief. Institutions dedicated to a belief are not, by definition, scientific.12

I agree that “conclusion flow from evidence” if we are talking about observational science. Experiments can be done in the lab and see if they support or do not support the initial hypothesis. I would argue that is not true for historical science. Both creationists and evolutionists “begin with a conclusion” about the past because it’s not something that is observable, testable, repeatable, or verifiable. Those conclusions about the past are based on faith—either faith in God’s Word or faith in man’s ideas. To use Novella’s own words, we could say, “Legitimate [historical] science” is very different from observational science and does “subvert facts and logic to [that presuppositional] belief.” It is scientific, just a different type of science.

This can be easily seen with some of the earlier examples I discussed. Schweitzer’s soft tissue discovery in dinosaur bones is challenging for evolutionists because it’s consistent with the fossils being much younger than millions of years. However, Schweitzer and other scientists have not changed their belief that the fossils are millions of years old because this is what their evolutionary presuppositions demand. Instead, they’ve said there must be a way for soft tissue to be preserved for millions of years despite any clear evidence or models to support this conclusion.

Mutations clearly show they cannot do what evolution requires. They cannot add the structures and functions required to proceed up the evolutionary tree from simple to complex. However, scientists have not changed their belief that evolution occurred via mutations and natural selection because this is what their evolutionary presuppositions demand. Instead, they’ve said there must be a way for mutations given enough time to do what is required for evolution.

Observable science is consistent with and confirms historical science based on God’s Word.

One of the things I enjoy about being a creation scientist is that observable science is consistent with and confirms historical science based on God’s Word. Of course, that makes sense because we know God (who cannot lie) has told us the truth about the past in His inerrant, infallible Word! Evolutionists have to “shoehorn” the observable science to try to make it fit with their ideas about the past that are fallible because they weren’t there and they themselves are fallible.

Novella also thinks that “having young-earth creationists peer-review articles by other young-earth creationists is, of course, worthless. It serves only to give a false imprimatur of scientific legitimacy to a religious anti-scientific ideology.”13 But I could say the same thing about evolutionists peer-reviewing articles by other evolutionists! From my viewpoint, evolution is a “religious anti-scientific ideology.” As the editor in chief of ARJ, should I be open to allowing evolutionists to peer-review submitted papers? No, and it’s the same reason evolution journals wouldn’t be open to allowing creation scientists to peer-review their submitted papers. Both creation and evolution are historical science and heavily influenced by presuppositional bias. The issue is not the evidence—we have the same evidence—the difference is our starting point as we analyze that evidence. The primary issue is the validity of what our presuppositions are based on—God’s Word or man’s ideas.

To prove my point, let’s look at several examples in mainstream science journals where scientists dared to suggest something other than atheistic evolution might be true and the backlash that ensued.

Richard Sternberg Peer Review Controversy

Richard Sternberg was the editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and in 2004 approved a literature review for publication by well-known Intelligent Design advocate Stehpen Meyer.14 The paper argued that natural selection cannot account for all the types of organisms that appeared during the so-called Cambrian explosion and that there must be an intelligent agent.15 Sternberg said the paper followed the regular review process. The reaction to the publication of the paper was fast and furious.

The Council of the Biological Society of Washington (responsible for the journal) released a statement, which in part stated,

The Council endorses a resolution on ID [Intelligent Design] published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.16

Notice they said ID was not a “testable hypothesis,” but neither is evolution because both are historical science! I appreciate that every technical journal has a purpose and standards, and they won’t publish articles that don’t align with that purpose or meet those standards. For most science journals, evolutionary beliefs may not be explicitly stated in the standards, but they are assumed. This is why creation-science journals like ARJ are so important for publishing science done by creation scientists.

Chinese Scientists Use of “Creator”

In 2016, PLOS One published a paper by a group of Chinese scientists on the biomechanics of the hand. The abstract contained this sentence, “The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.”17 The term “Creator” was also used in the introduction and discussion sections. Again, the outcry was swift and fierce with scientists calling for a boycott of the journal, editorial resignations, and so on.

Commenters on the paper said,

• “I was hoping this paper was a hoax.”
• “As a scientist, as well as a Plos One academic editor and author I feel outraged by the publication of a ms [manuscript] making explicit reference to creationism.”
• “There is no room in the scientific literature for Intelligent Design.”
• “This failure in the peer review and editorial oversight of Plos One is very distressing . . .”18

PLOS One bowed to the outcry and retracted the paper. The Chinese authors claimed the error was due to “their inexperience with the English language.”19 This controversy showed very clearly that you can have a perfectly good paper dealing with observational science but not have it published (or retracted) if you even mistakenly suggest something as complex as the hand is not the result of random chance over millions of years. Honestly, that goes against all reason, all common sense, and yet it’s what evolutionary presuppositional bias demands! Evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin summarized it well,

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.20

Molecular Machines and Intelligent Design

Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer published an article on fine-tuning in molecular machines in the Journal of Theoretical Biology (which as we’ll see is really only open to one theory!). Their thesis as stated in the abstract was,

We argue that biological systems present fine-tuning at different levels, e.g. functional proteins, complex biochemical machines in living cells, and cellular networks. This paper describes molecular fine-tuning, how it can be used in biology, and how it challenges conventional Darwinian thinking.21

The paper discussed the idea of Intelligent Design (ID) and methods to measure complexity in living systems. Their discussion included this statement,

However, we have enough evidence to demonstrate that fine-tuning and design deserve attention in the scientific community as a conceptual tool for investigating and understanding the natural world. The main agenda is to explore some fascinating possibilities for science and create room for new ideas and explorations.22

Obviously, challenging Darwinian thinking and exploring new ideas in science is not something many scientists are open to, and as you may have guessed, retraction of the paper was again demanded. However, the journal opted not to retract the paper but instead added a disclaimer to the paper that reads in part,

Since the publication of the paper [sic] it has now become evident that the authors are connected to a creationist group (although their addresses are given on the paper as departments in bona fide universities).

We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.23

It sounds like the journal was shocked to learn that creationists can be professors at secular universities! The research that Thorvaldsen and Hössjer published was good observational science. The problem came when they dared to say that the complexity we observe and measure in living things looks fine-tuned and designed and therefore challenges evolutionary ideas and aligns with Intelligent Design. Again, scientists committed to their evolutionary presuppositional bias “cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Conclusion

In 2008 when ARJ began, Stephen Novella gave other scientists this advice and a prediction: “But generally I think we should ignore the journal and hope it withers for lack of sunlight. I predict they won’t get many submissions of actual scientific research. Mainly it will be propaganda opinion pieces or reviews.”24

As the editor in chief of ARJ in 2026, I can confidently say this is not the case. Nineteen volumes and 434 papers later (and counting), we are still going strong! ARJ is NOT filled with opinion pieces or reviews. It’s filled with creation scientists doing good observational science and showing that it is consistent with historical science based on God’s Word. While there are critiques of evolutionary ideas, many of the papers focus on building the biblical creation model encompassing a broad range of areas including biology, geology, astronomy, archaeology, theology, paleontology, and more.

The real issue is not the evidence but how we look at that evidence in light of our worldview.

What I said in 2008 is still true today, “We [referring to ARJ] have a particular viewpoint. We start with the Bible as being true. And many other journals do not. They are going to start with human reasoning as the basis for truth.”25 Every scientist approaches science, especially historical science, with presuppositions. The real issue is not the evidence but how we look at that evidence in light of our worldview. Do we believe the infallible Word from the infallible God or fallible ideas from fallible man? We read certain things in God’s Word, and we expect to see certain things in the world. We see those things, and it confirms God’s Word is true. It’s Christians that have a reasoned faith and evolutionists that have a blind one.