Science must be interpreted in light of scripture (Talk.Origins)

Claim CH100.1:


 * All scientific observations must be interpreted in light of Scripture.

Source: Morris, J. D., 1996. ICR, for such a time as this. Back to Genesis 87a (March).

CreationWiki response:

The first thing that needs to be noted is that Talk Origins is misrepresenting Morris, thus turning this claim into a Straw Man.

Here is the actual quote in context.
 * 1) Morris is talking specifically to Christians.
 * 2) Morris is saying that in science Christians need to interpret observations in light of the Bible instead of twisting the Bible to fit a particular interpretation of those observations.

Talk.Origins' cited source is a pro-evolutionary activist organization, so its samples are the most friendly to its cause. Ironically despite this fact not one of the cited religious groups actually say that evolution is compatible with the Bible. On the contrary, to the extent that it is mentioned, they all agree that evolution is incompatible with what the Bible actually says. To force compatibility with evolution onto the Bible, they must claim that what the Bible says is scientifically irrelevant. They are doing exactly what Morris is warning against.

First of all Morris is talking specifically to Christians, so if those scientists who are not Christians wish to dismiss the Bible they are free to do so. A Hindu scientist is free to interpret observations based on Hindu scriptures, a Jewish scientist is free to interpret observations based the Old Testament alone or along with any other Jewish writings, a Muslim scientist is free to interpret observations based on the Koran, and those scientists who are atheists are free to ignore all theistic input.

There simply needs to be honesty about it. Biblical creationists are 100% honest about the fact that they interpret observations based the Bible. On the other hand, evolutionists like those at Talk.Origins insist on a totally naturalistic and therefore atheistic approach. They may deny that it is atheistic, but a description of origins by totally natural processes is by definition atheistic.

However if the Genesis account does indeed represent the true origin of the Earth, the universe, and man, then any interpretation of observations that does not interpret all scientific observations in light of Bible will be erroneous.

Furthermore Talk.Origins' claim is falsified by the fact the Biblical creationists are not monolithic on Biblical interpretation. Disagreement even in their area is healthy, since it helps prevent the type of dogmatism based on personal opinion that Talk/Origins seems so afraid of.