The Research Framework of the Biblical Science Research Center

The Biblical Science Research Center conducts research within a consciously biblical, interdisciplinary, and academically responsible framework.
Our methodology begins with the conviction that the created world is real, ordered, intelligible, and open to disciplined investigation. We affirm that observation, measurement, experimentation, mathematical reasoning, engineering analysis, historical inquiry, and logical evaluation are legitimate means of studying creation.
At the same time, we recognize that scientific methods do not operate independently of worldview. Researchers always interpret evidence within assumptions concerning reality, causation, history, knowledge, and the kinds of explanations they are willing to consider.
For this reason, BSRC does not claim philosophical neutrality. We conduct research openly under the authority of Scripture while seeking the highest standards of scientific rigor, transparency, precision, and intellectual honesty.
Our methodology may be summarized as follows:
Revelation establishes the framework.
Observation provides the evidence.
Analysis examines the relationships.
Modeling proposes explanations.
Testing evaluates the models.
Revision improves the conclusions.
Worship gives the research its final purpose.

Part I Foundational Orientation

1. Research Begins with a Clearly Defined Question

Every research project should begin with a precise and answerable question.
A broad topic is not yet a research question.
For example:
• “Birds and flight” is a topic.
• “What structural and environmental conditions determine whether a large bird can achieve sustained flight?” is a research question.
A useful research question identifies:
• the phenomenon being investigated;
• the relevant variables;
• the scale of analysis;
• the historical or operational context;
• and the kind of conclusion being sought.
Research questions should be stated without exaggeration and should not assume in advance what the evidence must prove.

2. Biblical and Scientific Questions Must Be Distinguished

Some research questions are primarily exegetical.
Others are primarily physical, biological, geological, historical, or engineering questions.
These should not be confused.
For example:
• Scripture may establish that the Flood was historical and global.
• Scientific investigation must still examine possible mechanisms, environmental conditions, sediment transport, chronology, and geological consequences.
Likewise:
• Scripture may establish that God created living organisms purposefully.
• Engineering and biological analysis must still investigate how particular structures function.
Biblical revelation provides authoritative historical and theological boundaries.
Scientific research investigates the physical structures, processes, relationships, and consequences within those boundaries.

3. Presuppositions Must Be Identified

Every project should identify its major presuppositions explicitly.
These may include assumptions concerning:
• the authority of Scripture;
• the reality of divine creation;
• the historical character of Genesis;
• the stability of physical laws;
• the reliability of observation;
• the validity of mathematics and logic;
• the distinction between operational and historical science;
• and the possibility that past environmental conditions differed from present conditions.
Presuppositions should not be hidden.
Open acknowledgment allows readers to evaluate how foundational commitments influence the interpretation of evidence.

4. The Researcher Must Distinguish Revelation from Interpretation

BSRC distinguishes among three levels of claim:
Biblical Revelation
What Scripture actually teaches.
Scientific Observation
What has been directly measured, described, documented, or experimentally observed.
Human Interpretation
What researchers infer from biblical texts, scientific evidence, calculations, and models.
This distinction protects both Scripture and science from careless claims.
A scientific model should not be presented as though it were directly revealed in Scripture.
Likewise, a modern scientific theory should not be treated as though it were identical with observed reality.

Part II Biblical and Theological Analysis

5. Relevant Biblical Texts Must Be Examined Carefully

When a project involves biblical history, cosmology, anthropology, biology, judgment, providence, or creation, the relevant passages should be studied exegetically.
The analysis should consider:
• the original language where necessary;
• grammar and syntax;
• lexical meaning;
• literary genre;
• immediate context;
• canonical context;
• covenantal structure;
• historical setting;
• and the relationship of the passage to the whole of Scripture.
Key terms should not be defined merely by modern English usage.
Where Hebrew or Greek terms carry interpretive significance, their grammatical and semantic range should be examined responsibly.

6. Scripture Must Interpret Scripture

Difficult passages should be understood in the light of clearer passages.
A scientific or historical interpretation should not rest upon an isolated word or verse when the wider biblical witness provides additional clarification.
BSRC therefore uses the principle of the analogy of faith:
• Scripture is internally coherent;
• no passage should be interpreted in a manner that contradicts the clear teaching of the whole Bible;
• and theological conclusions should emerge from the canonical witness rather than from isolated proof texts.

7. Historical Narrative Must Be Treated as History

Where Scripture presents persons, places, genealogies, covenants, judgments, and events as historical, research should not redefine them as myth merely because they conflict with dominant naturalistic reconstructions.
This principle applies particularly to:
• creation;
• Adam and Eve;
• the Fall;
• the Flood;
• Noah;
• Babel;
• the patriarchs;
• the exodus;
• and the historical work of Jesus Christ.
Literary artistry does not eliminate historical reality.
Theological meaning and historical truth are not opposites.

8. Biblical Interpretation Must Not Be Controlled by a Desired Scientific Result

Researchers must resist the temptation to force Scripture to support a preferred model.
A model concerning atmospheric pressure, geological structure, biological function, or pre-Flood ecology must not be inserted into the biblical text unless the text itself supports such a conclusion.
The responsible procedure is:
1.determine what Scripture clearly teaches;
2.identify what Scripture permits but does not specify;
3.distinguish those conclusions from scientific reconstruction;
4.and state openly where a model remains speculative.

Part III Evidence Collection

9. Research Must Begin with the Best Available Evidence

Evidence may include:
• experimental measurements;
• field observations;
• fossils;
• anatomical structures;
• geological formations;
• chemical composition;
• physical properties;
• historical documents;
• astronomical observations;
• biological data;
• engineering drawings;
• mathematical relationships;
• satellite data;
• photographs;
• microscopy;
• and published research.
Researchers should prioritize primary sources wherever possible.
Secondary summaries may be useful, but they should not replace original data when original data are available.

10. Sources Must Be Evaluated Critically

Not every published source has equal authority.
Sources should be evaluated according to:
• the qualifications of the author;
• the quality of the data;
• the research method;
• transparency of assumptions;
• reproducibility;
• peer review;
• publication context;
• possible conflicts of interest;
• and consistency with other evidence.
A source should not be accepted uncritically merely because it supports a biblical conclusion.
Likewise, a source should not be rejected merely because its author works within a naturalistic framework.
Data may be useful even when the interpretation of that data is disputed.

11. Observation Must Be Distinguished from Inference

Researchers should label clearly what has been observed and what has been inferred.
For example:
• “The fossil contains a preserved feather impression” is an observation.
• “The organism used the feathers for powered flight” is an interpretation.
• “The organism descended from a particular ancestor” is a historical reconstruction.
Confusing these levels produces false certainty.
BSRC research should identify the inferential distance between evidence and conclusion.

12. Data Quality Must Be Documented

Where numerical data are used, the researcher should record:
• the measurement method;
• the instrument used;
• the units;
• the sample size;
• the uncertainty;
• the range of values;
• possible sources of error;
• and whether the data are measured, estimated, or derived.
Data should not be presented with more precision than the method justifies.

13. Negative Evidence Must Be Evaluated Contextually

The absence of evidence may be meaningful, but only under certain conditions.
Researchers should ask:
• Should the evidence reasonably have been preserved?
• Has the relevant environment been studied sufficiently?
• Could later processes have destroyed the evidence?
• Is the sampling adequate?
• Are the instruments capable of detecting the expected signal?
The absence of evidence is strongest when the evidence should be present, preserved, detectable, and repeatedly discoverable.

Part IV Classification of Research

14. Operational Research

Operational research investigates present processes that can ordinarily be observed, measured, repeated, and tested.
Examples include:
• aerodynamic testing;
• material strength analysis;
• chemical reactions;
• pressure effects;
• biological respiration;
• fluid flow;
• temperature response;
• and mechanical performance.
Operational research should seek reproducibility and measurable results.

15. Historical Research

Historical research investigates past events that cannot be repeated directly.
Examples include:
• the original creation;
• the pre-Flood world;
• the global Flood;
• fossil formation;
• ancient climates;
• extinction events;
• and the historical distribution of organisms.
Historical research proceeds through inference from present evidence, historical testimony, and models of past conditions.
Its conclusions should therefore be expressed with appropriate degrees of confidence.

16. Design Research

Design research investigates whether structures exhibit purposeful organization, integrated function, information, optimization, or engineering coherence.
It may ask:
• What objective does the system appear to serve?
• Are the components coordinated?
• Does the system contain feedback or control?
• Is the arrangement functionally necessary?
• Could the system operate if major components were absent?
• Does the system resemble known principles of engineering design?
Design research should avoid vague appeals to complexity.
It should identify specific functional relationships.

17. Comparative Research

Comparative research examines similarities and differences among organisms, systems, environments, or models.
A comparison should use clearly defined criteria.
For example, a study of avian flight architecture may compare:
• skeletal structure;
• wing geometry;
• feathers;
• air sacs;
• pneumatic bones;
• respiratory capacity;
• body mass;
• tail configuration;
• and environmental requirements.
A meaningful comparison must use the same categories consistently across all subjects.

Part V Systems and Engineering Analysis

18. Study the Whole System, Not Only Individual Parts

A structure may be misunderstood when isolated from the system in which it operates.
BSRC therefore emphasizes integrated system analysis.
Researchers should identify:
• system boundaries;
• inputs;
• outputs;
• components;
• interfaces;
• feedback loops;
• energy sources;
• control mechanisms;
• environmental dependencies;
• and failure modes.
A wing cannot be understood apart from muscles, bones, metabolism, control, and air density.
A lung cannot be understood apart from circulation, gas exchange, pressure, and metabolic demand.

19. Define the Intended or Observed Function

A functional analysis should specify what the system does.
Possible functions include:
• lift;
• thrust;
• stability;
• control;
• respiration;
• circulation;
• protection;
• energy conversion;
• information storage;
• reproduction;
• heat regulation;
• and structural support.
The function should be stated in measurable terms wherever possible.

20. Identify Environmental Conditions

System performance depends upon environment.
Relevant conditions may include:
• pressure;
• density;
• temperature;
• humidity;
• oxygen concentration;
• oxygen partial pressure;
• gravity;
• water depth;
• radiation;
• terrain;
• nutrient supply;
• and ecological interaction.
Researchers should avoid assuming that present environmental conditions necessarily represent all past conditions.

21. Identify Constraints and Boundary Conditions

A model is meaningful only when its limits are defined.
Boundary conditions may include:
• maximum stress;
• minimum velocity;
• permissible temperature;
• available power;
• oxygen tolerance;
• geometric limits;
• material strength;
• and energy conservation.
A proposed mechanism that violates known physical constraints should be rejected or revised.

22. Conduct Free-Body and Force Analysis Where Relevant

Mechanical and aerodynamic research should identify all significant forces.
These may include:
• lift;
• drag;
• thrust;
• weight;
• buoyancy;
• friction;
• inertial force;
• pressure force;
• and structural reaction.
Forces should be represented clearly in diagrams and equations.
Directions, sign conventions, reference axes, and assumptions should be stated.

23. Use Dimensional Analysis

Equations must be dimensionally consistent.
Researchers should verify that:
• units match;
• conversions are correct;
• variables are defined;
• coefficients are appropriate;
• and numerical results remain physically meaningful.
Dimensional errors often reveal deeper conceptual errors.

24. Compare Performance Across Scenarios

Where environmental or structural uncertainty exists, researchers should calculate multiple scenarios.
For example:
• present atmospheric pressure;
• two atmospheres;
• four atmospheres;
• seven atmospheres;
• and twelve atmospheres.
Scenario analysis reveals how strongly a conclusion depends upon assumed conditions.
It also prevents a single speculative number from controlling the entire argument.

Part VI Quantitative Modeling

25. Define All Variables

Every equation should identify:
• the symbol;
• the physical meaning;
• the unit;
• the source of the value;
• and whether the value is measured, estimated, or assumed.
Undefined variables weaken the transparency of research.

26. State All Equations and Their Applicability

A formula should not be used merely because it is familiar.
Researchers should explain:
• why the equation applies;
• the assumptions behind it;
• the valid range;
• whether the flow is steady or unsteady;
• whether the system is linear or nonlinear;
• whether compressibility matters;
• and whether the geometry has been simplified.
An equation may be mathematically correct but physically inappropriate for the problem.

27. State Initial Conditions

Historical and dynamic models depend heavily upon initial conditions.
These may include:
• starting temperature;
• pressure;
• velocity;
• volume;
• composition;
• geometry;
• mass;
• water distribution;
• population;
• and energy state.
Initial conditions should be distinguished from results.

28. Use Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis examines how the result changes when assumptions or inputs change.
Researchers should ask:
• Which variable affects the result most?
• How much uncertainty does each variable introduce?
• Does the conclusion remain valid across a reasonable range?
• Is the model stable or highly dependent upon one uncertain assumption?
A conclusion is stronger when it remains robust under reasonable variation.

29. Report Uncertainty

Scientific results should not be presented as exact when the inputs are uncertain.
Uncertainty may arise from:
• measurement error;
• sample variation;
• estimated geometry;
• unknown past conditions;
• uncertain coefficients;
• simplified equations;
• and incomplete evidence.
Researchers should use ranges, confidence intervals, or scenario bands when appropriate.

30. Distinguish Possibility from Probability

A model may demonstrate that an event is physically possible.
This does not automatically show that it was historically probable or that it actually occurred.
Researchers should distinguish:
• physically impossible;
• physically possible;
• mechanically feasible;
• environmentally plausible;
• historically consistent;
• and strongly evidenced.
These categories should not be collapsed into one another.

31. Computer Simulation Must Be Interpreted Carefully

Computer simulations are useful for exploring complex systems.
However, a simulation does not discover reality independently.
It produces results from:
• programmed equations;
• input values;
• assumptions;
• boundary conditions;
• and numerical methods.
A simulation should therefore be validated against experimental or observational data whenever possible.
Simulation output should not be described as direct evidence.

Part VII Model Development

32. A Model Must Explain More Than One Isolated Fact

A strong model should integrate multiple lines of evidence.
For example, a pre-Flood atmospheric model should seek to explain:
• biological performance;
• respiratory demands;
• climate stability;
• pressure effects;
• heat transfer;
• insect size;
• flight conditions;
• and post-Flood transition.
A model that explains only one observation while creating numerous contradictions elsewhere is weak.

33. Models Should Be Internally Coherent

A model must not use mutually incompatible assumptions.
For example, a proposed atmosphere cannot simultaneously require:
• high density for flight;
• low pressure for human survival;
• high oxygen for metabolism;
• and low oxygen partial pressure for safety
unless a coherent composition and physiological mechanism are demonstrated.
All parts of the model must work together.

34. Models Should Be Interdisciplinary

A geological model may have biological implications.
An atmospheric model may have physiological implications.
A hydrological model may have thermal and structural implications.
Researchers should therefore test models across relevant disciplines rather than evaluating them within only one narrow field.

35. Competing Models Should Be Compared

Researchers should identify alternative explanations and compare them using common criteria.
These criteria may include:
• explanatory scope;
• consistency with evidence;
• number of assumptions;
• physical feasibility;
• predictive power;
• biblical consistency;
• and interdisciplinary coherence.
A model should not be preferred merely because it is the researcher’s own.

36. A Model Should Generate Testable Expectations

A useful model should produce expectations that can be examined.
For example, a model may predict:
• particular structural features;
• specific pressure relationships;
• fossil distribution patterns;
• aerodynamic performance;
• sedimentary characteristics;
• or physiological constraints.
A model that can explain every possible result after the fact is difficult to evaluate scientifically.

37. Models Must Remain Open to Revision

No scientific model produced by BSRC is treated as infallible.
Models may be revised when:
• new evidence is discovered;
• calculations are corrected;
• assumptions are challenged;
• better equations become available;
• or interdisciplinary contradictions emerge.
Revision is not failure.
It is part of responsible scientific progress.

Part VIII Hypothesis Evaluation

38. Formulate the Hypothesis Clearly

A hypothesis should be specific enough to evaluate.
For example:
“Higher atmospheric density would improve the flight performance of large birds” is broad.
A stronger hypothesis would identify:
• the expected density range;
• the relevant species;
• the performance measure;
• and the physical mechanism.

39. Identify Supporting and Falsifying Evidence

Researchers should ask not only what evidence would support the hypothesis, but also what evidence would weaken or falsify it.
Possible falsifiers may include:
• inadequate power;
• structural failure;
• physiological intolerance;
• inconsistent fossil evidence;
• contradictory measurements;
• or violation of conservation principles.
A hypothesis that cannot be challenged is not scientifically useful.

40. Avoid Confirmation Bias

Researchers must not search only for data that support their preferred conclusion.
They should actively examine:
• contrary evidence;
• alternative interpretations;
• limiting cases;
• failed calculations;
• and relevant criticism.
A biblical worldview does not require fear of evidence.
Truth cannot ultimately threaten the Word of God.

41. Use Multiple Lines of Evidence

A conclusion is stronger when supported independently by different forms of evidence.
These may include:
• biblical testimony;
• anatomical analysis;
• physical calculation;
• environmental modeling;
• fossil evidence;
• comparative biology;
• and engineering feasibility.
Independent convergence is more persuasive than repeated use of one assumption.

Part IX Experimental and Observational Practice

42. Experiments Should Be Reproducible

Where possible, experiments should be described in sufficient detail for others to repeat them.
This includes:
• equipment;
• materials;
• procedure;
• calibration;
• sample conditions;
• data-processing methods;
• and statistical analysis.

43. Controls Should Be Used

Experiments should include appropriate control conditions.
Controls help distinguish the effect of the variable being tested from unrelated influences.
The control design should be explained clearly.

44. Sample Size Must Be Appropriate

A conclusion based on one specimen, one trial, or one measurement should be stated cautiously.
Researchers should consider:
• biological variation;
• measurement variation;
• specimen condition;
• and statistical reliability.

45. Replication and Independent Verification Are Valuable

Important results should be repeated.
Where possible, other researchers should be invited to examine the data, calculations, or experimental method.
Independent verification strengthens credibility.

Part X Historical Reconstruction

46. Historical Reconstruction Requires Multiple Constraints

A proposed past event should be consistent with:
• physical laws;
• available evidence;
• chronological relationships;
• geographical distribution;
• environmental conditions;
• biological limits;
• and biblical history.
Historical plausibility requires more than imaginative possibility.

47. Present Processes Should Be Used Carefully

Present processes may help explain the past, but their rates and environmental context should not be projected backward automatically.
Researchers should ask:
• Were the same conditions present?
• Could the process have operated faster?
• Was the event catastrophic?
• Were there different boundary conditions?
• Is there historical testimony concerning the event?

48. Catastrophic and Gradual Processes Must Both Be Considered

BSRC does not assume that every feature formed catastrophically.
Nor do we assume that every feature formed gradually.
The evidence should determine the relevant mechanism.
Some processes may be slow and ordinary.
Others may be rapid, episodic, and catastrophic.

49. Chronology Must Be Derived Transparently

Where timelines are proposed, researchers should identify:
• the source of the dates;
• the dating method;
• assumptions concerning rates;
• calibration procedures;
• possible contamination;
• and uncertainty.
Chronology should not be presented as independent of the method used to construct it.

Part XI Interdisciplinary Review

50. Relevant Disciplines Must Be Identified

Before completing a project, researchers should determine which fields are necessary for evaluation.
A study may require input from:
• biblical studies;
• theology;
• physics;
• chemistry;
• biology;
• geology;
• engineering;
• mathematics;
• medicine;
• computer science;
• and history.

51. Specialists Should Review Technical Sections

Where possible, technical claims should be reviewed by researchers with relevant expertise.
An exegete should review significant Hebrew or Greek arguments.
An engineer should review structural or aerodynamic calculations.
A physician or physiologist should review claims concerning human tolerance.
Interdisciplinary humility protects against overreach.

52. Terminology Should Be Consistent Across Disciplines

The same word may carry different meanings in different fields.
Terms such as:
• information;
• design;
• law;
• adaptation;
• pressure;
• function;
• species;
• and evidence
should be defined clearly.

Part XII Documentation and Publication

53. Research Records Must Be Preserved

Researchers should retain:
• raw data;
• calculations;
• source files;
• diagrams;
• photographs;
• code;
• model versions;
• and revision history.
This allows later verification and correction.

54. Sources Must Be Cited Accurately

Every borrowed idea, quotation, dataset, image, or calculation should be cited appropriately.
Citations should allow the reader to locate the source.
Primary sources should be cited whenever available.

55. Figures and Tables Must Be Transparent

Figures should include:
• titles;
• labels;
• units;
• legends;
• scales;
• and source information.
Tables should identify:
• variables;
• assumptions;
• measured values;
• calculated values;
• and uncertainty.
Illustrations should not create a false impression of precision.

56. Images Must Be Identified Properly

Researchers should distinguish among:
• photographs;
• reconstructions;
• conceptual diagrams;
• simulations;
• and artistic illustrations.
A reconstructed image must not be presented as though it were a direct photograph of the past.

57. Conclusions Must Match the Evidence

A paper should not claim more than its analysis demonstrates.
The conclusion should distinguish:
• what was established;
• what was strongly supported;
• what remains plausible;
• what remains uncertain;
• and what requires further research.

58. Limitations Must Be Stated

Every serious paper should contain a section describing limitations.
These may include:
• incomplete data;
• estimated parameters;
• simplified geometry;
• uncertain chronology;
• lack of experimental replication;
• and dependence upon model assumptions.
Acknowledging limitations increases rather than decreases credibility.

59. Corrections Should Be Published Openly

When a significant error is discovered, BSRC researchers should correct it.
Corrections may involve:
• recalculation;
• revised figures;
• updated conclusions;
• withdrawal of unsupported claims;
• or publication of an explanatory note.
Truth is more important than protecting personal reputation.

Part XIII Ethical Safeguards

60. Data Must Never Be Fabricated or Manipulated

No biblical objective can justify false data.
Researchers must not:
• invent measurements;
• alter results dishonestly;
• remove inconvenient data without explanation;
• or misrepresent sources.

61. Opposing Views Must Be Represented Fairly

A researcher should describe another position in a manner its responsible advocates would recognize.
Straw-man arguments weaken Christian scholarship.
Criticism should address the strongest relevant form of an opposing view.

62. Speculation Must Be Labeled

Creative hypothesis formation is valuable.
However, speculation must be identified as speculation.
Readers should not be left with the impression that a proposed reconstruction has stronger evidence than it actually possesses.

63. Apologetic Usefulness Must Not Override Truth

A claim should not be published merely because it appears useful for defending creation.
A weak argument may damage Christian witness.
BSRC therefore values careful truth over sensational impact.

Part XIV Standard Research Workflow

The following workflow summarizes the normal BSRC research process.

Step 1: Define the Question

State the research question clearly and identify its scope.

Step 2: Identify the Biblical Framework

Examine the relevant biblical texts and establish what Scripture clearly teaches.

Step 3: State Presuppositions

Identify theological, philosophical, scientific, and historical assumptions.

Step 4: Gather Evidence

Collect primary data, published research, measurements, images, and relevant historical material.

Step 5: Classify the Evidence

Distinguish observation, measurement, calculation, inference, and interpretation.

Step 6: Define the System

Identify the system boundary, components, environment, inputs, outputs, functions, and constraints.

Step 7: Develop the Model

Construct a qualitative, mathematical, engineering, or historical explanation.

Step 8: Perform Quantitative Analysis

Use equations, units, scenarios, uncertainty ranges, and sensitivity analysis.

Step 9: Compare Alternatives

Evaluate competing explanations using the same criteria.

Step 10: Test the Hypothesis

Identify supporting evidence, contrary evidence, and possible falsifiers.

Step 11: Conduct Interdisciplinary Review

Seek relevant theological, scientific, and engineering criticism.

Step 12: Revise the Model

Correct errors, refine assumptions, and improve explanatory coherence.

Step 13: Publish Transparently

Present methods, evidence, calculations, limitations, sources, and conclusions clearly.

Step 14: Continue Investigation

Treat publication as a stage in research rather than the end of inquiry.

The BSRC Research Standard

A BSRC research project should seek to be:
Biblically Faithful
Consistent with responsible exegesis and the historical framework of Scripture.
Empirically Grounded
Based upon observable evidence and reliable data.
Quantitatively Responsible
Supported by equations, measurements, units, and uncertainty analysis where applicable.
Mechanically Feasible
Consistent with physical, chemical, biological, and engineering constraints.
Historically Coherent
Able to explain past events without confusing reconstruction with direct observation.
Interdisciplinary
Examined across all relevant fields.
Transparent
Clear concerning assumptions, methods, limitations, and confidence levels.
Correctable
Open to criticism, testing, revision, and correction.
Ethically Responsible
Conducted with honesty, fairness, and respect for life and truth.
God-Glorifying
Directed toward worship, stewardship, service, and the honor of the Creator.

Conclusion

The Biblical Science Research Center seeks to practice a form of research that is both confessionally faithful and scientifically serious.
We reject the assumption that submission to Scripture requires the abandonment of careful investigation.
We also reject the assumption that scientific credibility requires submission to naturalism.
Our methodology is founded upon the conviction that all truth belongs to God.
Scripture provides the authoritative framework.
Creation provides the field of investigation.
Human reason provides a limited but genuine instrument of discovery.
Observation and experiment provide evidence.
Mathematics and engineering provide analytical tools.
Historical reasoning provides reconstruction.
Peer criticism provides correction.
And worship provides the final purpose.
We therefore approach every research question with confidence and humility:
confidence, because creation is ordered by God;
humility, because human knowledge is limited;
courage, because truth need not fear investigation;
and reverence, because the world we study belongs to the Creator.
We examine evidence carefully.
We state assumptions openly.
We calculate responsibly.
We distinguish fact from inference.
We revise models honestly.
We submit every conclusion to the truth of God.
Science for the Glory of God.