Science and the Bible. But they differ in epistemology, the way that knowledge is perceived and acquired. They also differ in a very different worldview. Let us see the two sources of differences of Biblical knowledge and scientific knowledge.

It should never be assumed that science and the Bible generally agree. They may at many points because they are both sources of knowledge and understanding of reality as people understand reality. 

Science assumes basically that the only reality that we really know about is that which we can perceive with our physical senses. That which we can prove and test in a laboratory is true reality, science declares. What we can’t prove must be theory or personal belief until we can prove it. It can not be asserted with confidence to be true.

The Bible on the other hand assumes that reality can be perceived by faith. By believing in God, one can know that God is. And by experiencing what can be experienced in our heart or whole person is reality as much as what we can prove in a laboratory. By faith we know a lot of truth so clearly that we base and structure our whole life on it. We do not ignore what we can learn by science, but we believe there is more than can be perceived than in the laboratory by human tools and methods.

Science assumes a world view that does not need any God, as God is not subject to lab testing and not reality in the scientific sense. Regardless of what short fall there is in science such as the origin of matter, God can thus not be a scientific option as he is not a part a part of the scientific world view. He does not exist scientifically, i.e., as he is not ‘testable’ by human tools and predictability. This does not mean that a man can not be a scientist and a believer in God. The scientist predisposed to believe in God may find a need for God to explain what he learns in science, and he may believe in God by the logic of necessity, but not by scientific proof. The believer only believes in God by faith, and his world view assumes there is a God, which is totally logical to him. His worldview is wider than the world of the scientist, as his source of knowledge is larger, incorporating both scientific knowledge and knowledge derived by faith with a God in it.

The Bible was never written as a scientific treatise with modern scientific assumptions. It was written many years pre-science with a world view that assumes there is a God who is part of the whole existence of reality. The Bible is not limited to the knowledge of 20^th century science. It pre-existed modern science. So it does not even care to be consistent with science, since that is such a limited world view. To assume that the Bible and science agree ignores the different worldviews of the two. To assume that inspiration of the Scripture calls for scientific accuracy assumes that the measurements of science are accurate conclusive and that the Bible should agree with a nonbeliever’s assumptions. It was never written to agree with centuries' later assumption of reality. To measure the Bible by science is to measure God and reality by human standards which are contrived by human beings without a consideration and assumption that there is a God. So to ask if the Bible and science agree is to assume falsely that they should or could agree. The question is rather, how could they always agree since they begin with differ assumptions and epistemology and thus certainly will experience and see reality differently?

Science claims a monopoly on truth. That has the only real and valid dependable truth. It assumes that any other “truth” is suspect, and of inferior validity. Science has captured the confidence of American culture and made religion second class and relegated to it subjectivity, or it being only personal belief. Thus religion is judged by science that claims to be the only valid source of truth. Many Christians are also caught up in this secular religion. They have faith in man, and man’s system of belief and reality. Thus unwisely try to harmonize science and the Bible, something totally uncalled for. Why should we judge an historical document by standards set up many years after the Bible was written? The narrower view of reality can’t possibly encompass the wider view of reality portrayed in the Bible. It is like analyzing the scenery of a valley through a keyhole. Its judgments thus are bound to be limited and inaccurate.

The assumption here is that there is more than one source of truth. We have spoken here of science and religion. There is also folklore, and folk understanding of truth. Much modern alternative medicine that trusts food supplements untested by the god of the scientific community may be considered to be civilized folk medicine. There is also the world of demons and spirits that is as real to its adherents as scientific knowledge. Reincarnation is also a source of truth to some. The western world is polarized largely between the science and religion. But there are still strong remnants of superstition that are neither science nor religion. Friday the 13^th just doesn’t pass from Western thought even with all the deification of science. One should likely not lift up any system of thought and knowledge as the only source of truth. The Bible may not even have the scientific answer for cancer or many other problems of society. As heavily as Western society relies on science and somewhat on religion for truth, consideration must be give that there is knowledge that is out side of either science or religion. Telepathy and premonition may exist outside of either two main western epistemologies. Thus we must conclude with the ancient writer who declare that “now we know in part”, but perhaps later we shall know all that needs to be known.