In his book, No Final Conflict, Francis Schaeffer wrote about science and the Bible. I thought the following quote was worth sharing here:
What the Bible teaches where it touches history and the cosmos, and what science teaches where it touches the same areas do not stand in a discontinuity. There indeed must be a place for the study of general revelation (the universe and its form, and man in his “mannishness”) – that is, a place for true science. But on the other side, it must be understood that there is no automatic need to accommodate the Bible to the statements of science. There is a tendency for some who are Christians and scientists to always place special revelation (the teaching of the Bible) under the control of general revelation and science, and never or rarely to place general revelation and what science teaches under the control of the Bible’s teaching. That is, though they think of that which the Bible teaches as true and that which science teaches as true, in reality they tend to end with the truth of science as more true than the truth of the Bible.
A Daughter of the Reformation 
I can understand the difficulty for a scientist, who is a Christian, to say: ‘I hold the authority and inerrancy of the Bible above what I think I might ‘know’ about creation. When observation and study seem to contradict Scripture, I know that my knowledge is incomplete. Some things will present themselves just around the corner that may cause a complete paradigm shift in scientific thinking- it has happened many times before; some things may not be understood until the consummation of all things in Christ.’ I can also respect that approach.
Should it surprise us that the scientific evolution of Darwin’s and Freud’s teaching has been to reduce the beginning of all life to primordial impulses? Marx and Freud were wrong and are irrevocably out of vogue today; Darwin’s science was uninformed by today’s standards and contained errors. As the saying goes: “Never say never.’ Today’s ‘science’ is often tomorrow’s error.
LikeLike
I would add one other thing about ‘knowing’. This rests in the apologetic of how ‘fallen’ man is. If one does not hold to a belief that all of man is fallen- his rationality and thinking as well as a moral and physical effect of the fall- then it allows for ‘neutral’ facts about the world around us. If, however, one holds that there are no ‘neutral’ facts, that there can be no truth apart from the God who is revealed in Scripture because words like ‘true’, ‘absolute’ and ‘factual’ depend on whether there is such a thing as absolute truth. Science isn’t neutral at all. It is either based on the truth of a God who is there or it is opposed to it, which leaves it devoid of absolutes.
LikeLike