How does biblical literalism relate to scientific literalism?
Question 1129
This question gets at something important: when we say we take the Bible literally, does that commit us to a particular view of science? And when scientists speak of observing the “literal” facts of nature, are they using the word the same way? The relationship between biblical literalism and scientific investigation is more nuanced than many people on both sides recognise. Let’s think it through carefully.
What Biblical Literalism Actually Means
When evangelical Christians speak of literal interpretation, we mean interpreting Scripture according to its normal, grammatical, historical sense. We recognise that the Bible contains various literary genres: historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, apocalyptic, wisdom literature, epistles. Each genre has its own conventions, and literal interpretation means reading each according to its type.
Poetry uses metaphor. When the Psalms speak of God’s wings or His arm, we understand these as anthropomorphic imagery, not physical descriptions. Apocalyptic literature uses symbolic numbers and visions. Revelation’s beasts are not literal animals but represent kingdoms or powers. Proverbs gives general wisdom principles, not unconditional promises. Literal interpretation recognises all this.
What literal interpretation rejects is the imposition of meanings foreign to the text: allegorising away historical events, spiritualising prophecies that were meant concretely, or reinterpreting Scripture to fit modern sensibilities. We take the text at face value according to what the original author intended to communicate to the original audience.
What Scientific Literalism Means
In science, “literal” observation means recording what can be empirically measured and tested. Science operates through hypothesis, experimentation, observation, and revision. It deals with the physical, measurable world and makes no claims about metaphysical realities beyond its purview.
Good science is humble about its limits. It describes how the natural world works; it doesn’t address why it exists or whether there is purpose behind it. Scientific theories are provisional, subject to revision as new data emerges. What was scientific consensus a century ago may be overturned today.
When scientists speak of the “facts” of evolution or the age of the universe, they are speaking of the best current interpretation of available evidence within their methodological framework. This is different from the kind of certainty we attach to biblical revelation. Scripture claims to be God’s Word, true and unchanging. Scientific theories make no such claim.
The Relationship Between Bible and Science
The Bible is not a science textbook. It was not written to answer the questions science asks. It tells us who made the world (God), why He made it (for His glory and our good), and what has gone wrong (sin). It does not give us the chemical formula for water or the distance to the nearest star. Those are not its concerns.
This means that when Scripture speaks about the natural world, it often uses phenomenological language, describing things as they appear to human observers. The sun “rises” and “sets” (Ecclesiastes 1:5), though we know the earth rotates. The mustard seed is called the smallest of all seeds (Matthew 13:32), though technically it isn’t, it was the smallest seed Palestinian farmers typically planted. These are not errors; they are normal human speech.
Conflict arises when scientific claims are taken as comprehensive truth claims that exclude the biblical perspective, or when biblical statements are forced to answer scientific questions they were never addressing. The solution is to recognise that the Bible and science are asking different questions and operating in different domains.
Areas of Genuine Tension
Having said that, there are areas where biblical statements do touch on matters science also addresses, and tensions arise.
Creation: Genesis teaches that God created the heavens and the earth. The dominant scientific view attributes the universe’s origin to the Big Bang and life’s diversity to evolution. These are different accounts. How one reconciles them depends on how one reads Genesis and how much weight one gives to scientific consensus.
Biblical literalists who see Genesis 1-2 as straightforward historical narrative will hold to special creation and typically a young earth. Those who see Genesis as theological narrative or framework may accommodate long ages or evolutionary processes, while still affirming God as Creator. Both groups can affirm biblical inerrancy; they differ on hermeneutics.
Miracles: The Bible records events that defy natural explanation: the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth, the resurrection. These are not metaphors; they are claims about what actually happened. Science, by definition, cannot account for miracles because its methodology assumes natural causation. But this doesn’t mean miracles didn’t happen; it means science lacks the tools to assess them.
A biblical literalist affirms that God can and does intervene in the natural order. The resurrection is the cornerstone of our faith (1 Corinthians 15:14). If we reduce every supernatural event to metaphor, we’ve abandoned historic Christianity.
A Balanced Approach
A balanced approach recognises several things:
First, the Bible is authoritative revelation from God. Where it speaks, it speaks truly. Our interpretations may be wrong, but Scripture itself is not.
Second, science is a valuable tool for understanding the natural world. God gave us minds to investigate His creation. Science has produced remarkable advances that improve human life and reveal the complexity and beauty of what God made.
Third, apparent conflicts often arise from misinterpretation on one side or the other. Perhaps we’ve misread Scripture, or perhaps the current scientific consensus is incomplete or wrong. Humility is appropriate on both counts.
Fourth, some questions may not be fully resolvable this side of eternity. We walk by faith, not by sight. Where we cannot reconcile apparent tensions, we trust that God’s truth is coherent even if we can’t see how.
Conclusion
Biblical literalism and scientific literalism are not the same thing. They operate in different domains with different methods and different kinds of authority. Taking the Bible literally does not mean ignoring science, and respecting science does not mean abandoning Scripture. Both point to truth, and ultimately to the God who is Truth. Our task is to read Scripture carefully, engage science honestly, and trust that the Author of both nature and Scripture is not in conflict with Himself.
“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” Psalm 19:1
Bibliography
- Lennox, John C. Seven Days That Divide the World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
- Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.
- Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.
