The paper proposes the B2N2 model as a framework for a “theology of science” through an intertextual reading of the Bible and the Book of Nature. However, a fundamental issue lies in its conflation of theological and scientific epistemologies. The model claims scientific status while relying on narrative coherence, symbolic fidelity, and personal belief (e.g., “illative sense”) as its primary validation criteria. These are not compatible with the methodological standards of science, which rely on empirical testability, falsifiability, and reproducibility. As a result, the B2N2 model lacks epistemic discipline: it cannot distinguish between narrative legitimacy and scientific validity. Without defined limits or falsifiable mechanisms, the model risks becoming a theological narrative wrapped in scientific language, philosophically expressive, but methodologically incoherent. This undermines its central claim to serve as a bridge between science and theology on equal epistemic terms.
