ICR:No. 201--DANIEL AND THE CLASSICAL EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN  by James William Treece, Jr.*

   Probably not many Bible scholars or scientists are aware that
Daniel-- the same Daniel who was cast into the lion's den--was also a
scientist. A scientist may be defined as one who utilizes the
scientific method as a means of testing hypotheses. Scientists are also
trained in research methodology. Daniel, therefore, can be classified
as a scientist both by training and practice. In Chapter 1 of his book,
Daniel gives the account of his use of classical experimental design--a
technique to control variables that might bias a scientific research
project--in order to acquire knowledge and test a hypothesis.

   Some months ago my wife, who is a nurse-educator, was carefully
reading Chapter 1 of Daniel and pointed out the value of a diet of
vegetables and water. We are all aware of the need for vitamins and
fiber, and the harm which excessive sweets, cholesterol, alcohol, and
caffeine can cause. The food regimen which Daniel proposed would be
recognized as quite beneficial, according to health standards today. My
wife was impressed with the diet, but, as a sociologist with training
in the area of research methodology and the philosophy of science, my
interest was captured by the experiment which Daniel proposed:

   And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat,
and of the wine which he drank; so nourishing them three years, that at
the end thereof they might stand before the king....But Daniel purposed
in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the
king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested
of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself....Then
said Daniel, Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them
give us pulse {vegetables} to eat, and water to drink. Then let our
countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the
children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest,
deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this manner, and
proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances
appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat
the portion of the king's meat. Thus Melzar took away the portion of
their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse
(Daniel 1:5-16).

   Daniel's proposed research was set up along what is known as the
classical experimental design. According to current methodology, this
design is composed of control and experimental groups, with each group
being subject to a before-and-after test. The following diagram is the
usual visual representation of the design of the experiment.

   Utilization of this design requires that subjects in both groups be
treated exactly the same in every aspect except for one variable--in
this case, the diet. Stated simply, both control and experimental
groups were under identical conditions, except that the control group
subjects consumed the king's meat and wine, while the experimental
group had pulse and water. The purpose of the before-and-after test was
to compare the subjects in the control group with the subjects in the
experimental group to see if there was any change. Since other
potential variables in the two groups were the same, any change could
be attributed to the one variable--diet.

   Note that Daniel and the children were described (v. 4) as "well
favored, and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and
understanding science...." He proposed an experiment in which he, along
with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, would eat pulse and water for ten
days, while the remainder of the subjects would partake of the king's
meat and wine. Actually, Daniel was putting his hypothesis (statement
of the relationship between two variables) to a scientific test. His
hypothesis contained the independent variable (the cause-- diet) and
the dependent variable (the effect--fairer and fatter countenances in
flesh), which are the necessary component of a hypothesis.

   When I was first exposed to the concept of the experimental design
as a student in college, I was impressed with the cleverness of this
method of testing and hypothesis. A bit of research in the library
revealed that Roger Bacon is considered the father of modern science.
He helped to develop the methodologies for confirming or refuting
hypotheses by an ethical system of gathering empirical data through
systematic observations. When he published his "Opus Majus," in 1266
A.D., he described the controlled experiment as a means of acquiring
scientific knowledge.1

   The use of controlled experiments as a standard procedure for
testing hypotheses was adopted by the social scientists in the mid-19th
century. Physical scientists were using the scientific method perhaps a
hundred years earlier, with some reservation. The favorable attitude
toward empirical observations grew, in spite of the hostile environment
of logical deduction as taught by Plato and Aristotle. Skepticism and
disagreement were instrumental in retarding acceptance of what we now
call the scientific method. For example, Wilhelm Wundt, the
psychologist, opened his experimental laboratory in 1879, in Leipzig,
Germany. Other social scientists were turning to the methods of science
in the 1850's and 1860's, after observing the great strides in
gathering new knowledge from the physical sciences. Today, physics and
chemistry classes, basic and applied industrial research, testing of
new medicines and products, all make use of advanced, sophisticated
designs of experimental research. But Daniel used the classical
experimental design in Nebuchadnezzar's reign, in 605 B.C.-- 1,871
years before Bacon conceived the idea.

   It is interesting to speculate whether Bacon may have developed the
experimental method from reading Scripture. Personally, there is little
doubt in my own mind that he really did discover the experimental
method from reading Daniel. He was emphatic in his belief that all
wisdom comes from God and personally believed that Scripture was a
means of increasing faith, not a source for refuting theological
arguments. "For all wisdom is from the Lord God, as the authority of
the Scripture holds...." he wrote. In other words, God was the source
of all knowledge and wisdom, and man obtained his knowledge and wisdom
by reading the Bible under the influence of the Holy Spirit who guided
human understanding. I believe that God gave Daniel the wisdom and
knowledge of science. Daniel, in turn, recorded his Godly wisdom in the
book bearing his name. All things considered, Bacon quite possibly
conceived the notion of the experimental design from the book of Daniel.

   Daniel 1:20 indicates that Daniel and the three other men were ten
times better in all matters of wisdom and understanding than all the
magicians and astrologers who were in the realm. Daniel's God-given
wisdom was superior to secular knowledge ten times over. We can wonder
if much of this God-given wisdom was gained through similar experiments
as the one recorded.

   Just how good was Daniel's methodology, according to contemporary
standards? One of the first considerations of an experimental design is
in selecting subjects. The usual method of assigning subjects to the
control and experimental groups is by randomization. That is, we place
participants into groups by chance, rather than by some method which
might bias the results. For example, had Daniel selected the most
unhealthy-looking subjects for the control group and the fairer and
fatter individuals for the experimental group, the experiment would not
have been valid, since a bias would have been introduced. But Daniel
bypassed randomization. For the experimental group, he selected
Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and himself. This selection process
satisfied an important part of experimentation in current vogue, known
as ethics.

   In experiments of this type, when life patterns and habits are at
stake, subjects should be allowed to be in either the experimental or
control groups so that the researcher is not manipulating his subjects.
The four experimental subjects wanted to be on a diet of vegetables and
water. The other subjects preferred the king's diet of delicacies and
wine. By allowing the choice, the possibility of improper
representation on the part of the subjects was minimized. Both groups
would present themselves in the best possible mode, in the hope of
continuing their preferred diets.

   Next, equal size of experimental and control groups was ignored by
Daniel, with justification. Had the subjects been assigned by a
double-blind system (subjects and researchers do not know which
subjects receive the experimental variable and the experiment is
managed by a disinterested third party until the results have been
quantified), it would have ignored ethical considerations and opened up
the possibility of cheating. In such a case, some of the experimental
subjects objecting to the vegetable-and-water diet probably would have
cheated and stolen some of the king's dainties, meat, and wine, adding
a bias to the results.

   Another dimension to the strength of the design, which indicated
Godly wisdom, is the time period which Daniel selected to run his
experiment. The ten-day period, according to current medical practice,
is adequate to detect and determine physiological trends for situations
like this. Since Daniel obtained his knowledge through God, the Author
of all knowledge, ten days must be the optimum time period. Additional
time would not show any appreciable difference for the response being
studied.

   The validity of the hypothesis is shown by the results. Daniel 1:15
says it all: "And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared
fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the
portion of the king's meat."

   Finally, what about statistical significance--the degree that the
findings are not the result of chance? It is often said that statistics
are most valuable when there is a small difference between the control
and the experimental groups. In this case, the difference was quite
obvious to the king's investigators. By any statistical formula, the
results of Daniel's experiment are beyond the realm of chance. The four
subjects were visibly more healthy than any one of the many control
subjects.

   A concluding observation: Some people have said that the Bible is
not a scientific textbook, but the book of Daniel brilliantly
demonstrates the use of the classical experimental design--the most
powerful method of testing in scientific research.

   * Mr. Treece holds an M.A. degree, and is Associate Professor of
Sociology at Liberty University.

   REFERENCES

   "Roger Bacon, The Opus Majus" in Selections from Medieval
Philosophers II, From Roger Bacon to William of Ockham, ed. R.P.
McKeon. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1980), p. 34.

