How do we tell apart bad science from good science? For example, suppose one textbook says that magnetism demonstrates that the deity is able to make opposite poles attract, while a second textbook says it illustrates a force between electric currents. Defenders of the first book say its description provides the better account because it is more consistent with reality (namely scripture). Defenders of the second book say its description provides the better account because it is more consistent with reality (namely certain other facts about the physical world). On what basis (if any) can we say that the second book’s description is better science than the first book’s?