OOPS! How a Gunshot Injury Illustrates Limits of the ‘Scientific Method’, Contrasting Empirical Science with Forensic Science

Oops! How a Gunshot Injury Illustrates Limits of the ‘Scientific Method’,  Contrasting Empirical Science with Forensic Science

James J. S. Johnson, JD, ThD, CIHE, CPEE, CNHG


A recent gunshot accident, in Texas, illustrates the difference between empirical science (observing the present) and forensic science (discovering the no-longer-observable past).

 An Argyle [police] officer was flagged down by a man on Stonecrest Road who stated he’d just shot himself with a .45-handgun. The officer observed a gunshot wound to the 22-year-old’s right thumb and forearm. He applied a gauze pad to control the bleeding until medics arrived. The victim’s fiancée stated they were sitting … on the front porch. The victim told her that if you put your hand in front of the gun, it could not fire. The brother [of the victim] told the victim that if you put your finger in the barrel it won’t fire. Both witnesses stated the victim then put his thumb on the [end of the] barrel and pulled the trigger. Both the victim and the brother were proven to be incorrect. The handgun was still loaded and the officer advised everyone not to touch the gun until a deputy could make it to the scene. … The medics transported the victim to the Denton Regional Medical Center.(1)

The gunshot victim, in effect, used an empirical science approach to learn about the effect of firing a handgun when a thumb is put onto the end of its barrel. The immediate results were observable. (This experiment can be repeated, of course, but it should not be!)
Empirical science is all about observing how things presently operate in the real-world, especially how physical things operate according to real-world laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics, optics, gravity, etc.  But learning the truth about unique events of the past is completely different from observing things in the present.

Who shot the gunshot victim, and how, and where, and when, and why? How did the investigating officer know the cause of the gunshot wound? The gunshot wound itself is a physical effect of a past causation event. But the gunshot injury itself cannot tell us, with certainty, how that past event happened.

So how can we ever know reliable truth about unique events of the past? To learn reliable truth about non-recurring events – such as a gunshot injury – we need the report of a trustworthy eye-witness. Eye-witness reports can be corroborated – or refuted – by physical evidence, because physical evidence can be consistent with (and thus support) a witness report.

Or, consider something less bizarre, yet just as unique: when and where were you born?  Likewise, how can we know Earth’s origins?  Or what about the origins of human life?   Or death?

By just looking at the world (or doing lab experiments), today, we cannot know the answers to these questions, because these past events are not being repeated today. In other words, the uniformitarian assumption (i.e., that the present is supposedly the “key” to the past) is unreliable when it is applied to unique events of the past, such as specific etiology (cause-and-effect) events.(2),(3) What we know about unique cause-and-effect events (like Creation Week events, the Flood, or even our own births) depends upon reliable witness reports.(2),(3)

But can the uniformitarian assumption adequately substitute for a reliable witness?
Evolutionists (whether atheists or closed-Bible deists) habitually hang their highest hopes on uniformitarian assumptions, trusting that unusual (and even unique) events, such as cosmic origins or human origins, can be determined apart from reliable witness reports, by using “only the scientific method” (i.e., observation-based empirical science). But the “scientific method” (a/k/a empirical science) applies only to observing natural facts in the present, such as the boiling point for water at sea level. Empirical science methods can even be trusted, sometimes, to infer events of the no-longer-observable past, but only if those events are similar to events that routinely recur today,–such as sunrise, sunset, the moon’s cycle, the annual seasons, etc.(2),(3),(4),(5),(6)

But, if a past event is unusual (e.g., creation of Adam and Eve, the global Flood, etc.), we cannot know the truth of what happened without a reliable witness.  The only eye-witness of the cosmos being created was God Himself — a fact that God emphasized unto the prophet Job:   “WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I LAID THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH? DECLARE, IF YOU HAVE UNDERSTANDING!” (Job 38:4)

As finite creatures we need God to give us such information (which He has graciously done – see John 17:17; Psalm 119; 2nd Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 4:4; 2nd Peter 1:16-21; Jude 1:3-4). Genesis is such a record; God Himself is the ultimately authoritative and reliable witness.   Physical effects existing today, like sedimentary rock layers or dinosaur soft tissue, can corroborate authoritative history reported in Genesis. But, any cosmogony(5) without Genesis is just wild speculation (oops!), illegitimately assuming the uniformitarianism of deists James Hutton and Charles Lyell – in contrast to the cosmogony endorsed by our Lord Jesus Christ.(2),(3),(6),(7)


1. “Argyle Police Blotter”, in The Cross Timbers Gazette, June 2016, page B10. The local police report summary concludes with this sentence: “No Looney Tune characters were involved in the incident.”

2. James J. S. Johnson & Jeffrey Tomkins, Blood Crying from the Ground: A Forensic Science Perspective, Illustrated by the Gruesome Killing of America’s Most Hated Woman, Comparing Empirical and Forensic Science Methodologies, presented at the Creation Research Society Conference, Dallas, Texas, July 31st, AD2015; 25 pages. The point was made, at this CRS presentation, that reliable truth about our origins cannot be learned apart from the perspicuous report (i.e., the Holy Bible) provided by the only reliable eye-witness, God.

3. In effect, proponents of Darwin’s natural selection theory propose uniformitarian assumptions (and related non-empirical speculations) as a substitute for reliable eye-witnesses of Earth’s (and our own) origins. See James J. S. Johnson, “Is the Present the ‘Key’ to the Past?”, Acts & Facts, 43(6):19 (June 2014), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/8165 . See also, regarding the epistemological difference between empirical and forensic science methodologies, James J. S. Johnson, “Mystick Mystery: Scientists Investigate Connecticut’s Pequot War Battlefield,” posted July 8th, AD2015, at https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/mystick-mystery-scientists-investigate-connecticuts-pequot-war-battlefield/ .

4. See Randy J. Guliuzza, “Darwin’s Imposter: The Illusion that Natural Selection Operates on Organisms”, Acts & Facts, 40(9):12-15 (September 2011), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/darwins-sacred-imposter-illusion-that/ (explaining how “natural selection” concepts are polytheistic/pantheistic animism by another name). See also James J. S. Johnson, “Norse and Germanic Mythology”, Chapter 14 in World Religions and Cults, Volume 2 (Green Leaf: Master Books, 2016, edited by Bodie Hodge & Roger Patterson), pages 271-272 & 287-288.

5. See, e.g., Genesis 1:1-18 & 8:22; Psalm 104:19-22. See also, regarding the popular trend of using uniformitarian thinking to evade the many evidences of the catastrophic worldwide Flood, 2nd Peter 3:3-6. Regarding the regularity of sun and moon cycles, see James J. S. Johnson, “The Moon Rules”, Acts & Facts, 44(9):21 (September 2015), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/moon-rules .

6. Cosmogony and cosmology are not the same, although both involve studying the cosmos. A “cosmogony” is an account of the origins of the cosmos; a “cosmology” is a systematic study of the cosmos as it exists in the present. Accordingly, cosmogony is a forensic science of cosmic origins, whereas cosmology is an empirical science of the currently observable cosmos. See James J. S. Johnson, “Genesis Critics Flunk Forensic Science 101”, Acts & Facts, 41(3):8-9 (March 2012), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-critics-flunk-forensic-science/ .

7. Christ affirmed the Genesis account of origins provided by God through Moses (see John 5:44-47).


Mystick Mystery: Scientists Investigate Connecticut’s Pequot War Battlefield


Mystick Mystery:  Scientists Investigate Connecticut’s Pequot War Battlefield

 James J. S. Johnson, JD, ThD, CIHE, CPEE

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of ‘science’ falsely so-called.   (1st Timothy 6:20)

The Pequot War in New England, during AD1636-AD1637, climaxed in a morning firefight at Fort Mystick, in Connecticut.(1) What really happened there? The explosive battle began and ended quickly, with many dead or wounded, some captured (and enslaved), — and many questions linger about who did what, when, where, how, and why.

The historic battle of Fort Mystick involved Puritans and Pequots, Narragansetts, and Mohegans.(1),(2) The site still bears silent witness to the triumphant yet tragic events of that day, providing physical evidence that forensic scientists can analyze for demonstrative clues.

The most extensive [forensic/archeological] work undertaken by the Battlefields Project has involved retracing the fateful events of May 25 and 26, AD1637, surrounding the fortified Pequot settlement at Mistick (modern Mystic, Connecticut). When English forces stormed the village’s wooden palisades, it was to be the major turning point in the Pequot War, shifting the balance of power in southern New England permanently in English favor.(1) [quoting Urbanus, page 34]

Examining the battlefield of Fort Mystick, almost 400 years later, can illustrate both the value and limitations of forensic science, showcasing some apologetics lessons relevant to origins science and the Genesis record.


Scientific Approach #1:  Guessing at Causation Events by Examining Only Physical Evidence

Suppose the battlefield was observed using the fundamental empirical science technique: observation.  Indeed, observation is the heart of the so-called “scientific method”.  What could be learned, by careful inspection and measurements, on the Fort Mystick battlefield?  What kind of inspection can be done, at this late hour, to know what transpired during the conflict involving hundreds of English colonists and various local native tribes? What artifacts (physical items) remain, that help us to understand what occurred that morning in May?

Archeologists use various investigative methods to analyze historic sites, such as military battlefields.  A complete “walkover”, supplemented by satellite maps (and topographical maps, if elevation differences are significant), can provide an introduction to the land where the events occurred.  The specific property where the battle took place is micro-mapped into a grid system, so that each square foot of property can be analyzed as to what is found (or not found) there.  Invasive methods (such as excavation) can be minimized by remote sensing and metal detection technology, to locate the wood-in-soil remains of the Pequot tribe’s “fortress fence” palisade—and to locate miscellaneous items under the soil, such as buried arrowheads or musket balls.(1) Soil testing may also reveal clues of past activities.(3)

The physical topography of the site is relevant to the actions of that fateful day. Did soldiers move uphill or downhill? Would troop movements be affected by the presence of rivers, streams, woods, or jagged rock formations? Assuming military movements, what were the key terrains, strategic observation points, cover/concealment places, obstacles to movement, and avenues of approach (such as palisade openings for ingress and egress)?(4)

What artifacts were found, in the soil? Round musket balls and deformed (“mushroomed”) musket balls are miniature monuments to the shooting activities of Connecticut Puritans. Arrowheads, spearheads, and tomahawk fragments are artifacts evidencing combat actions of Pequots, Narragansetts, and Mohegans.  Sometimes fragments of muskets, such as broken trigger mechanisms, are found in the soil.  Why would muskets get broken like that?

More questions invite answers—such as why would arrowheads be found all over the battle site, both inside and outside the fort’s palisade walls? In reconstructing the history of the battle, does it make sense to infer that the Pequot Indians (who fought from inside the fort) were both shooting arrows at the attacking English Puritans, and also being shot by arrows as well?  Surely English Puritans were not shooting arrows at Pequots! Yet the location of arrowheads appears to indicate that the Pequots inside (and sometimes exiting from) the fort’s palisade walls were being shot by arrows.(1)  What was going on back then?

If only physical evidence is available—observable in the present—we cannot make much sense (i.e., have a reliable understanding) of what really happened there on May 26, 1637.(5)

Why were some musket balls round, yet others deformed?  Why are broken bits of muskets left in the soil? Why were defending Pequot warriors being shot by arrows? If the only evidence available is presently observable physical evidence, the limitations of empirical science provide a dead-end to most of these causation questions.(1),(5)

But forensic science methodology, when applied to analyze no-longer-observable events of the past, is not so limited, because forensic science analysis incorporates reliable eye-witness testimony. And the reports of past events, by reliable eye-witnesses,(5) are what provide a trustworthy framework for recognizing the logical connection between present effects and past causes.


Scientific Approach #2:  Matching Physical Effects to Causation Reports by Eye-witnesses

Unlike the prior investigation, limited to physical evidence only, now consider a forensic approach where the physical evidences are analyzed to corroborate (i.e., “fit”) the eye-witness accounts, and thus compared with the physical evidence at the scene, to see if the eye-witness reports are buttressed or impeached by the physical evidences.

Using [Captain] Mason’s written journal, the boundaries of the fort, and the artifact distribution pattern and analysis, archaeologists have been able to ascertain the sequence of events of the Battle of Mystick Fort.(1)

Consider how participants in the Fort Mystick battle reported the events that occurred there, noting the excitement and duress of shooting muskets while being showered with countervailing arrows and spears. Some musketeers spilled musket balls, while trying to load them for shooting.  Those musket balls fell to the ground, still round in shape. Musket balls that were shot, however, and entered human bodies, deformed on impact, so eye-witness accounts of Pequots being shot provide a logical explanation for the causation of “mushroomed” musket balls.

But what explains where arrows were found?  Battle participants all concur that the battle was not limited to English Puritans versus Pequot tribesmen. Rather, the Pequots had many enemies, so the attacking force was composed more of Narragansetts and Mohegans than it was of Englishmen.(1),(2)

In other words, Narragansett arrows and Mohegan arrows were being shot at Pequot defenders, and vice versa, in addition to English musket balls.  Eye-witness reports also account for the broken musket parts, which became soil debris recovered centuries later. When ammunition was exhausted, hand-to-hand combat occurred—tomahawks chopping muskets, as muskets were swung as clubs or as defensive staffs (to ward off tomahawk chops and dagger jabs). It is this integration of eye-witness reports and physical evidence that provides a forensic picture of the past.

The position of the English forces could be gleaned, in part, by the presence of intact musket balls, which were frequently dropped [as eye-witness accounts indicated] as soldiers attempted to reload and fire quickly under duress.  Additionally, the direction of the attacking volley could be identified by concentrations of melted or impacted shot, which deform as they hit targets. In similar fashion, by analyzing the pattern of Pequot projectile points [e.g., arrowheads or spearheads, that remain in the soil centuries after those projectiles were launched], the archaeologists were able to surmise the direction and movement of the Pequot forces. Large concentrations of metal artifacts other than musket balls, such as broken gun parts or armor, indicated areas where hand-to-hand combat likely took place [which “fit” the action described later by battle participants].(1) [quoting Urbanus, page 36]

Apart from divine intervention, eye-witnesses perceptions and memories are finite and fallible, so their reports can be flawed or (if dishonesty complicates the reporting) even fabricated.  Accordingly, comparing controversial witness reports with physical evidences – without automatically trusting every detail in an eye-witness report — is a worthwhile endeavor, to reconstruct how a series of sequential events occurred in the past.(5)

In short, the eye-witness reports provide a potential explanation of cause-and-effect happenings, and that explanation either fits the physical effect facts or it doesn’t.

According to trail-blazing forensic scientist Edmond Locard, “every contact leaves a trace”, although caused effects can be obliterated by later “contaminations” of the physical evidence.(6) However, without an eye-witness report, as a testimonial framework to match physical effects (as either “fit” or “misfit”) to, the physical evidences themselves become mere fodder for unscientific speculations.(5),(7) Physical evidences are especially helpful for testing the reliability of a witness report, by corroborating or impeaching the plausibility and accuracy of the reported facts, because physical facts (like fingerprints or DNA) can serve as an “inferential rebuttal” (e.g., disproving an alibi story).(8)

Forensic Science Lessons, Relevant for Studying Origins Science and the Genesis Record

This need for (and value of) eye-witness testimony applies to investigating and understanding our origins. If a closed-Bible approach is taken to studying origins, unscientific speculations run riot.(5),(7),(9) After all, the physical creation—including complex life-forms that die—can confuse the present-day observer, who tries to reconcile designed beauty and complexity in living things (which exhibits intelligent engineering beyond human imaginations, much moreso beyond human capabilities) with the tragic and ugly realities of parasitism, predation, and death.(5),(7),(10)

In short, the atheist and the deist—both of whom try to explain the physical effects of Earth’s origin (as well as the origins of life-forms, and even our own origin) apart from Scripture—are guaranteed to err on major cause-and-effect questions, such as how was physical stuff made to exist; how was life caused to be; how did humans become male or female; how did death originate; how did the habit of observing a seven-day week begin; how did the reports of a universal Flood get started; how did human languages come into being; etc.(5),(7),(9)

Your origins matter. And you cannot know your origins without studying Genesis (which is the perfectly reliable eye-witness report, provided by the divine Eye-Witness Himself)  —  and believing  —  its report about the no-longer-observable past.(10)  It is only an open-Bible approach, to studying physical evidences, that makes relevant sense of both the big-picture and the details of our origins.


(1)          Jason Urbanus, “America’s First War: Uncovering Evidence of a Little Known Colonial-Era Conflict that Forever Altered the Dynamics of Native American and European Relations in North America”, Archaeology (January/February 2015), 32-37.

(2)          John Winthrop, The Journal of John Winthrop 1630-1649 (Harvard University Press, 1996 abridged ed.), 122-123; William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation 1620-1647 (Alfred A. Knopf, 1989), 295-296, 396-398. See also Henry R. Stiles, The History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, Connecticut – 1635-1891 (Picton Press, 1992), I:69 & II:50; Donald S. Barber, The Connecticut Barbers, 2nd ed. (n.d.), Part 1, entry for First Generation, Sgt. Thomas Barber (“The Pequot War in 1637”).  The Connecticut family history data, used in this research, was provided in large part by my cousin Donald Barber.

(3)          Jennifer Bonetti & Lawrence Quarino, “Comparative Forensic Soil Analysis of New jersey State Parks Using a Combination of Simple Techniques with Multivariate Statistics”, Journal of Forensic Science, 59(3):627-633-636 (May 2014).

(4)          The Military Terrain Analysis model uses the acronym KOCOA:  Key terrain, Observation, Cover and concealment, Obstacles, Avenues of approach.

(5)          Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 401-403. See also James J. S. Johnson, “Genesis Critics Flunk Forensic Science 101”, Acts & Facts, 41(3):8-9 (March 2012), note 9; James J. S. Johnson, “Tonsils, Forensic Science, and the Recent Fabrication Rule”, Acts & Facts, 41(6):8-9 (June 2012).

(6)          Jim Fraser, Forensic Science, A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2010), 2.

(7)        1st Timothy 6:20.  Unlike the usual need to test the verisimilitude of eye-witness reports, the Bible is   perfect and inerrant, so there is no excuse for committing what Dr. Jason Lisle has aptly labeled the “two-book fallacy”, because the Scripture always provided accurate and undistorted coverage of the history it reports. See Jason Lisle, “The Two-Book Fallacy”, Acts & Facts, 42(1):9 (January 2013). See also James J. S. Johnson, “What Good Are Experts?”, Acts & Facts, 41(11):8-10 (November 2012).

(8)        The forensic relevance of “inferential rebuttals” is analyzed in Richardson I.S.D. v. Watkins, TEA Docket # 025-LH-1207 (Texas CIHE decision, 2-1-AD2008), Part IV.  Regarding impeachment exhibits, see Dallas I.S.D. v. Gali, TEA Docket # 029-LH-1205 (Texas CIHE decision, 2-17-AAD2006), applying Texas Evidence Rule 901.

(9)        See Dr. Bill Cooper’s “The Calendar and the Antiquity of Genesis”, Acts & Facts, 38(6):19 (June 2009). See also James J. S. Johnson, “Is the Present the Key to our Past?”, Acts & Facts, 43(6):19 (June 2014); James J. S. Johnson, “The Failed Apologetic of the Wedge Strategy”, Acts & Facts, 40(8):10-11 (August 2011).

(10)      Job 38:4 & 38:21.  See also James J. S. Johnson, “Human Suffering; Why This Isn’t the ‘Best of All Possible Worlds’”, Acts & Facts, 40(11):8-10 (November 2011); James J. S. Johnson, “People Yet to be Created”, Acts &Facts, 43(11):20 (November 2014).

[ A later version of this article is posted on Answers in Genesis website at https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/mystick-mystery-scientists-investigate-connecticuts-pequot-war-battlefield/ .]