"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)

A "Back to Genesis" perspective proposes to use the Bible as a framework within which to interpret all observations, including scientific data. While secularists will bristle at such a suggestion, thinkers in both the scientific and education disciplines speak of using one's worldview to "inform" their work, especially original research. Philosophers of science have rightly noted that "there is no such thing as a value-free fact." Bias plays an important part in designing of experiments, assigning the worth of an individual observation, as well as interpreting the meaning of results. They have also noted that scientists are some of the most bias-driven folks you'll ever meet, especially when it comes to the historical worldview issue of creation/evolution.

Admittedly, most scientists today use evolution and old age as the grid within which they interpret their observations, and often scoff at those who use creation. But since neither can go back in time to actually observe history, both are on equal footing. The issue can only be addressed scientifically by comparing which of the competing views works better when predicting experimental results. It is my contention that the creation "bias" is the better bias.

Let me illustrate. For the past three years, ICR has facilitated scientific research on Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE). Numerous well-qualified experts in this field, all convinced Bible-believing Christians, have banded together to investigate this issue, recognizing that because of it many have begun to doubt Scripture and are intimidated by the overstated claims of radioisotope dating. Being intensely interested but only somewhat knowledgable in this field, I have been allowed to attend the meetings. I don't understand everything, but I can report that what has gone on is absolutely thrilling and stems from a creationist base.

Each meeting starts and concludes with prayer, not only for good results, but also for wisdom in "thinking outside the box." Each scientist is not only fully committed to Scripture, but his intellect is surrendered to the Lord's control. Each one's desire is to "think God's thoughts after Him" and to give Him glory for His mighty acts. Furthermore, each scientist is fully committed to science, and scrupulously adheres to the scientific method, not ignoring any of the evidence.

To them, even when the problems are daunting, there must be an answer. On the authority of the infallible Word of God, the recent creation of all things, the subsequent universal curse, the global flood of Noah's day—these are all facts of history which must provide the framework for interpretation of scientific data. The need for precise Biblical exegesis even led them to award a research grant to a Hebrew scholar in addition to the scientific research grants.

Questions have been asked, and projects proposed which would never have been investigated by old-earth advocates. And preliminary results are beginning to come in which suggest they are on the right track.

Here's my prediction. As God's Word is honored and these specially-trained scientists continue to do their science in submission to the Biblical worldview, answers will begin to come in which will thrill Christians and change science. It may take a few more years, but standard, old-earth thinking based on radioisotope decay will begin to crumble. To God be the glory.