Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Science means “knowledge” and refers to a process by which we learn about the natural world. There are two different kinds of science; observational and historical. Historical science deals with the past and is not directly testable or observable so it must be interpreted according to your worldview.
The Bible is the foundation for science. Non-Christians must borrow biblical ideas—such as an orderly universe that obeys laws—in order to do science. If naturalism were true—if nature is “all there is”—then why should the universe have such order? Without the supernatural, there is no basis for logical, orderly laws of nature.
In its original form science simply meant “knowledge.” Now, the denial of supernatural events limits the depth of understanding that science can have and the types of questions science can ask. Although naturalistic science claims to be neutral and unbiased, it starts with this bias. Making a distinction between operational (observational) science and historical (origins) science helps us to understand the limitations of these naturalistic presuppositions in science.
For those who haven’t already made up their minds before hearing us out—or reading what we’ve written many times on this website—are we truly against science? Not at all! Like other creationist groups Answers in Genesis affirms and supports the teaching and use of scientific methodology, and we believe this supports the biblical account of origins. So why all the disagreement?
The chemical origin of life remains the “holy grail” of evolutionists seeking to explain how life randomly emerged. Lifeless randomly interacting chemicals would have to be able to create the informational blueprint for an organism and the code to transmit that information, as well as a system for deciphering and implementing that code. Despite often-sensationalized headlines to the contrary, nothing in biology has ever been observed to do this.
Observational science is testable and repeatable, whereas historical (origins) science is extrapolation of current rates and processes back into the past.
Astronomy gives us glimpses of the incomprehensible size and complexity of the universe—proclaiming the infinite majesty and power of God.
Biology, the study of living things, is a rich science filled with intricacy and complexity that demands the presence of an intelligent Creator God.
Chemistry, the study of the elements that make up matter, powerfully demonstrates the complexity of life and the inability of chemicals to produce life.
How should we view climate change, global warming, environmental conservation, and biblical stewardship? Where does the Ice Age fit into biblical history?
Is the fossil record millions of years old, or is it powerful evidence for the global Flood of Genesis? And where are the transitional fossils and missing links?
DNA, the information stored within it, and the processes surrounding it are clear evidence of the need for an intelligent Creator God.
While many think rock formations and rock layers are evidence of an old earth, the Bible’s history and the rocks themselves teach a different story.
The human body is an absolute marvel of design. The intricate combination of muscles, bones, organs and tissues is a symphony that cries out for a Creator.
The characteristics of math reflect characteristics of God, its Creator.
The laws of physics are fine-tuned for life—exactly what we would expect if the universe were intelligently designed.
Humanity has utilized God-given intelligence and an orderly universe to create some breathtaking and astonishing inventions and technologies.
Even as skepticism spreads around the globe, the creation movement is flourishing. Meet some of the new generation of creation scientists.
Zika, spread by mosquitoes, can severely damage unborn babies’ nervous systems and cause them to be born with tiny heads (microcephaly).
Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey host wonders why Answers in Genesis critiqued his series and why anyone cares.
Uner Tan syndrome does not harbor the evolutionary “how” of human bipedality.