In some areas of science, the role that assumptions serve, is very minimal. For instance, the areas of science which are the most successful, which the public notices, are the amazing discoveries in medicine, biology, space exploration, and the like. In these areas, the assumptions play a smaller role since there is so much that can be found out through experimentation. These are the areas that deal with the here and now. Also, these areas have problems that scientists can study easily. Not some phenomena in outer space where we are again limited in the experiments that can be done to collect the data.

In these areas of the here and now, if an experiment is conducted and the information needed to answer the problem is not forthcoming, then another experiment can be designed to answer the problem. The process can continue until some answer to the problem is understood. The problem is only limited by money, ingenuity, and the technical difficulties that have to be surmounted.

So, if a scientist is experienced in one of these areas of present-day phenomena, such as that of biochemistry; Virtually every scientific problem he/she will try to solve, will involve present day natural processes. If an experiment that they design does not provide them with sufficient data to solve the problem, they can do another experiment. They can always kill another rat in another experiment. More and more rats can be sacrificed until some answer to their problem is understood.

However, the kind of science that seems to pit itself against what the Bible states as being true, is not the same kind of science that I have discussed thus far. When the scientific problem deals with something that has happened in the past, some aspect of evolution (or even creationism), the science process is limited.

Historical science is limited by the fragmentary nature of the artifacts it is able to find. So, instead of having an intensive series of experiments, more and more assumptions are having to be made because the researcher cannot get at the problem with experiments. In effect, the accuracy of ideas is limited by the assumptions chosen by the researchers because the actual experiments cannot be done.

You must realize that scientists from the start, assume that only natural processes are what governed our past. Scientists assume that God has not played any part in the history of our world. So because of this, they are only looking for answers that agree with natural processes. They have essentially solved the evolution/creation problem by definition!

Scientists almost never look for indicators in nature that might speak of a very young age for the world's history. Why would they? Most scientists do not believe that the short chronology of the Bible has any validity at all and most would consider it counterproductive to pursue such a course of investigation. If in fact such an answer were found, it would be quickly dismissed. It would be assumed that there was something wrong with the idea or the data, and a new scenario would be sought.

It should also be remembered that these researchers are not being dishonest in their actions. They think of the long age scenario of evolution as being fact. They do not believe that there is any alternative way to look at history. Period! So when the data does not come out right, it is only natural that they assume that there is something wrong with the dates that do not fit the long age viewpoint.

However, when they turn around and say that the data supports the evolutionary viewpoint and not the Creationary viewpoint. This is not right nor is it true! The data can support a number of viewpoints. So many people try to say something like: the weight of evidence proves evolution; or, all the data supports evolution. But this is not true either, the weight of evidence does not prove anything. We do not have an issue of weight of evidence. Rather, what we have is weight of interpretation! This interpretation is based on not only the data but it is also based on assumptions which are the viewpoint of the researcher.

This controversy is not over data. The data can go either way. Very intelligent people believe in the long history of the earth and they have good data to support them. There is no question about it. However, I look at that same data and I come to very different conclusions. This process is legitimate! There is such a thing as multiple interpretation to the data base. There is no proof for either position.

Scientific theories are not only based on data but also on interpretations that are based on various assumptions. Often a scientist has holes in the data; In other words, the data is not able to tell us everything that has happened in the past. So, a scientist will then make assumptions that help explain the data. These presuppositions are assumptions because the scientist cannot find the data that would support or attack the assumption. That is why it is an assumption. Science cannot support it or attack it as a theory. Science cannot even get at the problem.

In science, many of the basic questions, that determine the interpretation of a study, are not known. Especially are the historical sciences dependent on interpretation that is not fully understood. Since there is no way to solve all the basic questions of a problem, they must be assumed. So, in order for a scientist to study almost any aspect of nature, he/she must start with a set of assumptions that cannot be proved or found by experimentation.

Since Scientific understanding, by its very nature, must depend upon assumptions that cannot be substantiated; Then we must realize that Science cannot claim to be absolute truth. All science needs to do is to come up with a plausible scenario that answers the question that the scientist was looking at. Science answers questions, but it does not demand that the answers be correct. It hopes they are correct, but there is no direct way to determine the correctness of answers in science other than continued experimentation. So of course, if experiments cannot be conducted any farther, science cannot progress any farther. It is hoped that the right answers will eventually be found or that the current answers will be confirmed; but, there is no guarantee that truth will ever be achieved.

The real difference between the evolutionist and the creationist is that they have different assumptions that they base their interpretation on.

There is no real evidence that proves or disproves the Genesis story or Evolution. Instead we must choose which paradigm we wish to work in. Science can work in either paradigm providing they are successful.

Science is not absolute truth. Its concepts and mechanisms change as new data and viewpoints force it to change. Science does not describe what and how things are, but it is a description of what and how we think things are. We cannot get absolute answers to our questions, we can only observe, test, and probe the unknown until we begin to think we know what the answers are to our questions.

As a scientist I am aware of the changeable nature of science. Often we see many possible explanations that could solve a problem for the Creationist's position. However we must ask ourselves whether our explanation is true or not. Is it fully supported by the data? What are it's weak points? What needs to be studied to falsify the explanation?

Often clear answers seem to rise up from the data only to fall again as new evidence is realized for the first time. This is the way science works.

I have faith that further evidence for Creationism will be forthcoming, yet as a scientist, I must go where the data takes me. That is what makes what I am doing, Science. However, at the same time I must realize what my assumptions are when I am looking at the data. It may be that a chosen assumption may force the data to go away from what the Bible supports.

In essence, I am testing God with my research. At the same time, I am testing my assumptions. Testing our assumptions should also be part of science. The data can often go in several different directions, its the assumptions we make that determine which direction the data will take us. So, in this process, I am asking the question: "Can a scientific understanding of the data be obtained that fits with the Biblical story of Creation and the Global Flood?"

Many scientists I have met, compartmentalize their thinking on Science and Religion. Science and Religion cannot easily be brought into agreement, so many have kept them separate in their thinking. Presently, Science and Religion (Christianity) are at odds with each other. The teachings of one denies the other's main premise.

So, is there a God who has created all things? Or have all things come about by natural processes? I am amazed that people do not know this simple fact: that science cannot determine which assumption for our past is true. The basic assumptions that both Scientists and Christians choose to assume as being true, is scientifically untestable. Science cannot determine which is correct. scientists can only make assumptions!

Yet, we have a scientific community that says very vocally that science has answered the question that only natural processes have shaped our past and not God. If Science is unable to determine what happened in the past without assumptions and they only explore one set of assumptions; How can anyone say that Evolution is fact? How can we solve a problem when we ignore the other possibility?

Mainstream Scientist have essentially solved the evolution/creation problem by definition! They define science as only looking for natural processes, which is something that can be measured and observed. This is touted as being the reason why only this kind of study is actually science. It is governed by the scientific method, a process of experimentation and analyzing. Thus, they observe only natural processes because they assume that our world and life has only been shaped by natural processes.

However, it can not be proved that only natural processes have shaped our world and life! It is also assumed that when God is introduced to science that the scientific method become ineffective.

So, what is it that I do with my time when I study Origins? Is my study of the physical world, science? A few scientists have told me that I do not do science because I include God in my theories and thus, I can not use the scientific method.

They would want to restrict me to their more narrow view of what science is, that of Naturalistic Science.

However, what I do is Methodological Science rather than the more restrictive Naturalistic Science. I am using the term Methodological Science to designate a science which is open to a variety of explanations that include the concept of a Designer/Creator. So by using the term Methodological Science, I am saying that I use the methods of science by following the scientific method but that my theories also include the existence of God and His interactions with what we call the natural world. So, I can use the scientific method, but I must restrict myself to phenomena that I can test.

I can no longer decide that God does not interact in our world by ignoring Him. This is what most scientist do. If they can think of a possible explanation that explains their data without God, many think this helps to prove that God does not exist. This is not a valid method to determine what God does or does not do.

Science cannot prove their naturalistic explanation by ignoring the opposing theories. Yet this is exactly what has happened in the scientific community.

I think there is a much better way. Science usually cannot prove things, but on the other hand, science does work with possibilities. As a scientist, I can see if an idea is scientifically possible and I can study nature to see if a short time scenario will fit the data.

I cannot study the miracles themselves, since that would be trying to study something which is beyond the reach of the methods that we use, namely the scientific method. Rather, what I do is to study things that I can detect experimentally. The age of the Earth, is it around 6000 years old, or is it billions of years old? Is life progressing in an evolutionary process, or is it degrading in a degradative or degenerative process? Do pseudogenes arise in a repeatable process thus allowing different families of organisms to exhibit the same pseudogene at the same relative positions on their DNA; or do these similar pseudogenes only indicate that there was a common ancestor? These kind of questions are of the type that we can study using the scientific method. So, I can use the scientific method, but I must restrict myself to phenomena that I can test.

So, if Science is unable to determine where we came from in the past and has ignored the opposing side in their assumptions; What can we do as scientists to test the other possibility? The answer is obvious. We can test to determine whether the events described in the Bible can agree with the data of nature, that we can feel, touch, and see. We cannot pretend to be able to prove the existence of God. That is why these kinds of questions are assumptions and they remain as assumptions. We simply cannot get at the data to determine those questions. However there are certain things we can determine.

I am excited with the prospect of approaching problems from a totally different perspective. Yes there are many problems to confront and in some case the problems seem insurmountable. However overcoming problems is exactly why I chose to do science. In fact I see a unique opportunity in choosing research topics that are particularly troublesome to Creationists. A major breakthrough of scientific knowledge could result because I am using a unique set of assumptions.

If the Biblical Creation/Flood Paradigm is correct then I might expect to see explanations to associated phenomena that weren't originally sought after. A classical example of having associated phenomena being self-evident is the Watson/Crick discovery of the structure of DNA. Once the double helix was known, the basic process of DNA replication was immediately self evident because of the close association of the interacting bases within the molecule. All previous DNA models gave no easy mechanism possibilities.

The Evolution paradigm has been a successful tool for producing workable models and interesting theories, but I feel the Creation paradigm will prove to be even more successful in producing greater insights in the workings of reality.

So, I have become excited with the prospect to conduct rigorous scientific investigations, to look for evidence that the Earth could be quite young. As a Molecular Geneticist, I have been looking for alternate Pseudogene origins. (A simple definition of a Pseudogene is a gene that is defective in some way. The Pseudogene does not function.)

Are Pseudogenes the result of unsuccessful biological experiments in the Evolutionary process or are Pseudogenes the product of degradation from God's original creation design? As results come, they will be posted in the Molecular History Research Center web site.

You can read the introduction to the Pseudogene problem to understand measurable aspect of the problem. What is it that would help to determine if pseudogenes can fit within a short age chronology of the earth?

If God really exists, as is depicted in the Bible, then it should be clear that we have had an inside scoop into our past. that means that the process of science can be led in the right direction by using the right assumptions. Also, if God is interested in us, as is depicted in the Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and also Revelation (the last book of the Bible), then it should be plain that He will help us understand.

That is what I wish to test in my research. I do not pretend to to want to prove the existence of God; But, to see if His existence, as described in the Bible, can agree with the nature that we can feel, touch and see.

The manner in which we look at Scriptures is extremely important. If we do not some how standardize a way of reading and studying Scripture, than the assumptions that arises out of our understanding of the Bible is questionable. There are many ways to read the Bible, and of course, any different way of reading the Bible would cause us to arrive at different assumptions.

I read the Bible literally. I also try to determine what the Biblical writers meant to say by looking at the original language. I think it important that we determine what is actually said so that we do not make the text say more or less than that it was meant to say.

Many people struggle with the Bible when they try to align what the Bible says against the discoveries and opinions of Naturalistic Science. I am using the term Naturalistic Science or Mechanistic Science to designate a science that excludes the workings of God. No miracles can be considered, only natural processes are allowed to be possible.

So in the mind of many, the idea that Creation Week occurred about 6000 years ago or that a world wide global flood destroyed all that was living on the land of the Earth, just doesn't fit their view of reality. By definition, the assumptions of Naturalistic Science has chosen to ignore the possibility that God exists and interacts with our world! So many choose to think in terms of the first 11 chapters of Genesis as being allegorical. When they do this they explain away the very works of God which have become a great strength in my life.

I have personally felt the power of God in many ways in my life. It is especially clear to me that I did not receive these gifts that He has given me by explaining away Scripture. It is because I took promises in the Bible literal and pleaded to God for help, that I received help! Now because of my personal experience with Jesus, and having called for help in His name, I have a few interesting stories to tell you.

You can read of my personal experiences by first; clicking on the link "Why did I ever become a Creationist; and also the last chapter of my book: The Joy of winning with Christ for other early experiences. More recent experiences are described in: "Miracles: My Own Experiences!

Because of my own experience of receiving gifts from God when I take Him at His word, it is clear to me that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is not allegory; Nor do I see that these early chapters are couched in figurative language. I see these chapters as being a simple and brief description of what happened during creation week and the flood.

When I study the things of nature, I now include these ideas I have received from the word of God to help guide my theories and ideas in the right direction.

We will now turn our attention toward the Bible so we will be better able to determine what assumptions best fit the Bible and our data. We need to have a better understanding of what the Bible says so we can be more intelligent about our assumptions we need to make. Then of course, we will use these assumptions to help make some sense out of Nature, such as the radioisotope data we will be analyzing.