Science And The Bible

[DLH]

Also, religion invented electricity, the computer, and intertidal marine biology! I read all about it on a Christian site, so it must be true! If there never was a Christianity, then there would be no knowledge of electricity nor intertidal marine biology! If Jesus never died for our sins, then how do we know about limpets?

Limpets, therefore Christianity!

Sorry. Had to tease you.

I enjoyed it thoroughly. I would have enjoyed it perhaps more had I any idea whatsoever what a Limpets was. But there you go.

Yes, I know that the evangelicals claim that science comes from religion. They have to make this claim because as creationists, they need people to believe that evangelical preachers are greater experts in biology than 99.85% of biologists.

On message boards where science is discussed atheists tend to scoff at believers in the Bible as unscientific. I personally have never had either an interest in science nor a problem with genuine science, but that doesn't mean all believers are of the same mind. The following are very real people in the field of science who, to put it mildly, have no problem at all with the Bible.

Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, has done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants for the past 30 years, for 21 of those years with the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany. Also an elder in the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Byron Leon Meadows works at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. He is currently involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather and other planetary phenomena. Also an elder in the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka is a geologist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey of Flagstaff, Arizona. For 30 years doing work in scientific research in various fields of geology including planetary geology. He has had dozens of research articles and geologic maps of Mars published in accredited scientific journals, and is also a JW.

Paula Kincheloe has several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. In addition to studies in DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways she is also a volunteer Bible instructor for Russian speaking communities as a JW.

Enrique Hernandez-Lemus is a full time minister with the JW's and also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. His secular work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as gravothermal catastrophe, a mechanism of star growth. He has also worked with the complexity in DNA sequences.

 

[DLH]

I don't have a "theological practice" at all.

The question, then, is, do you have a valid opinion on the subject? As do I on science? At best, in both cases, very basic and uneducated.

Not at all. Your opinion blinds you to what I'm saying.

How come you always get the point without being able to see it in the reflection of the stagnant pool that is the debate / discussion on this subject?

Your opinion blinds you to what I'm saying.

There are parts of the Bible which do not deal with scientific truths, and as such science has no beef with them.

However, there are parts of the Bible which do, and it is apparently your position that in these instances science can never be right. If your interpretation of the Bible is literal, then science (literally) be damned.

No. Often science (archaeology) confirms the Bible's accuracy where scientific speculation got it wrong. For example, such and such an historical person in the Bible couldn't exist, science claims, because there is no other record of them. Well, first of all, that's stupid. The Bible is an historical record unparalleled, and second, to confirm the negative isn't scientifically plausible. Then you have scientific attempts to explain apparent celestial phenomenon in the book of Revelation in scientific terms, when all you need to do is look at earlier texts where these are obviously metaphoric descriptions of political and social unrest. There are lots of examples of this sort of thing.

The Bible and science disagree on evolution and the flood.

And the Bible is pretty clearly wrong on both counts.

That is your opinion. On the case of evolution it is baseless and empty. On the case of the flood there is evidence to the contrary and a history of science in misinterpreting floods on a local level.

But when it comes to which I would be inclined to trust, it would be Jehovah God over imperfect men of science. Or, science in in that general vague doublespeak y'all seem to have picked up.

So despite your protestations to the contrary, the Bible always wins when it comes to science.

Well, yes, and in yours science, even though it constantly corrects itself, which it should do, is always correct when it comes to The Bible and everything. Even though it isn't. You see the discrepancy and the desperation in that?

 

[Ford]

The question, then, is, do you have a valid opinion on the subject? As do I on science?

Your definition of a "valid opinion" is "does it agree with the Bible?"


The subject is the Bible vs science, and in your view the Bible always wins because Jehovah.


All other opinions are invalid.


If I am misinterpreting your position then please feel free to explain an area where you think the Bible clearly got science dead wrong.




I'll wait...

 

[bilby]

If the theory of evolution didn't agree with the Bible but was presented in a way that wasn't patently absurd I could count it as a valid conflict with the Bible, ...

OK, here it a non-absurd presentation for you:

Offspring take after their parents - that is, parental characteristics are, to a large extent, passed on to offspring.

Offspring are not, however, identical to their siblings.

Some inherited characteristics increase the likelihood that individuals who have that characteristic will have offspring; other characteristics increase the likelihood that individuals who have that characteristic will die before having offspring.

That's it; once you accept these three non-absurd statements of observable fact, you cannot logically escape the theory of evolution - which simply says that, over time, the traits that increase reproductive success will become common; while those that do not will become rare.

Given enough time, all of the variety of life we see today can arise via this simple mechanism.

If you don't think there has been enough time, given the sheer magnitude of the differences between different forms of life, then you don't have a problem with evolution; you have a problem with geology, physics, and cosmology.

What part of this do you consider 'absurd'?

I suspect that the descriptions of evolution that you have found to be absurd were not, in fact, descriptions of evolution, so much as distortions or misunderstandings of evolution. Such mangled absurdities are common; but as they are not actually descriptions of evolution, they can be ignored.

 

[Juma]

It was stopped by too much dependency on books (the bible and the greeks(aristotle etc)) instead of performing actual observation. The examples is so numerous that your ignorance is telling. (Sunspots, projectile trajectories," number of legs on flies etc).

What about evolution? Specifically what of Aristotle's, Anaximander's, Anaxagoras' and Empedocles' contribution to evolution prior to Darwin?

What about it? You seem to want to push a point.

 

[Bill Z. Bub]

you don't have to imagine a person long ago, just go watch a Shinto priest in Japan blessing a supermarket or house. They don't believe it, no more than you believe in Santa Clause, but you know, in that cliche there is an interesting lesson. Or two. If you're interested in that sort of thing. #1. People don't believe but they still tell their children, still practice such nonsense, it becomes a fun aspect of a materialistic culture. #2. Someone probably told you Santa Clause existed and you believed it, and then someone probably told you he didn't exist and you believed it. You never gave it much thought either way. Being hopeful of his existence you didn't research and being disappointed in his non-existence you did no research. You just believed what you were told.

I was never told that there was a Santa. I never believed. But I see him every year. Isn't that something? Point being that Santa does exist, Bill. Just not as legend and myth proposes.

Humans have always had the same inquisitive nature. Thousands of years ago we would have been just as likely to be skeptics as we are now.

Unfortunately, we would have also been just as likely to have been ruled by the robes with the magic incantations, etc.

In that sense, yes, religion and science have always been at odds.

I'm interested in specific points of conflict like Geocentric vs. Heliocentric, Evolution, prenatal influence, taxonomy, entomology, the global flood, pi and the sun standing still.

Imagine that I have no need to satisfy your "interests" and we'll get along fine.

 

[DLH]

you don't have to imagine a person long ago, just go watch a Shinto priest in Japan blessing a supermarket or house. They don't believe it, no more than you believe in Santa Clause, but you know, in that cliche there is an interesting lesson. Or two. If you're interested in that sort of thing. #1. People don't believe but they still tell their children, still practice such nonsense, it becomes a fun aspect of a materialistic culture. #2. Someone probably told you Santa Clause existed and you believed it, and then someone probably told you he didn't exist and you believed it. You never gave it much thought either way. Being hopeful of his existence you didn't research and being disappointed in his non-existence you did no research. You just believed what you were told.

I was never told that there was a Santa. I never believed. But I see him every year. Isn't that something? Point being that Santa does exist, Bill. Just not as legend and myth proposes.




I'm interested in specific points of conflict like Geocentric vs. Heliocentric, Evolution, prenatal influence, taxonomy, entomology, the global flood, pi and the sun standing still.

Imagine that I have no need to satisfy your "interests" and we'll get along fine.

Why don't I just start putting people who have a need to tell me that they don't want to have discussions with me on ignore. I'll start with you.

 

[DLH]

What about evolution? Specifically what of Aristotle's, Anaximander's, Anaxagoras' and Empedocles' contribution to evolution prior to Darwin?

What about it? You seem to want to push a point.

You said that science was stopped by too much dependency on books and gave Aristotle, who wrote about evolution long before Darwin, as an example. I gave three other examples of Greek philosophers who wrote about evolution before Darwin as well. Did these have a negative impact on science?

 

[DLH]

If the theory of evolution didn't agree with the Bible but was presented in a way that wasn't patently absurd I could count it as a valid conflict with the Bible, ...

OK, here it a non-absurd presentation for you:

Offspring take after their parents - that is, parental characteristics are, to a large extent, passed on to offspring.

Offspring are not, however, identical to their siblings.

Some inherited characteristics increase the likelihood that individuals who have that characteristic will have offspring; other characteristics increase the likelihood that individuals who have that characteristic will die before having offspring.

That's it; once you accept these three non-absurd statements of observable fact, you cannot logically escape the theory of evolution - which simply says that, over time, the traits that increase reproductive success will become common; while those that do not will become rare.

Given enough time, all of the variety of life we see today can arise via this simple mechanism.

If you don't think there has been enough time, given the sheer magnitude of the differences between different forms of life, then you don't have a problem with evolution; you have a problem with geology, physics, and cosmology.

What part of this do you consider 'absurd'?

I suspect that the descriptions of evolution that you have found to be absurd were not, in fact, descriptions of evolution, so much as distortions or misunderstandings of evolution. Such mangled absurdities are common; but as they are not actually descriptions of evolution, they can be ignored.

 

[DLH]

The question, then, is, do you have a valid opinion on the subject? As do I on science?

Your definition of a "valid opinion" is "does it agree with the Bible?"


The subject is the Bible vs science, and in your view the Bible always wins because Jehovah.


All other opinions are invalid.


If I am misinterpreting your position then please feel free to explain an area where you think the Bible clearly got science dead wrong.




I'll wait...

There is no case of the Bible, when approaching the subject of true science, getting it wrong. There are only circumstances which science can't explain.

 

[dystopian]

 

[Juma]

What about it? You seem to want to push a point.

You said that science was stopped by too much dependency on books and gave Aristotle, who wrote about evolution long before Darwin, as an example. I gave three other examples of Greek philosophers who wrote about evolution before Darwin as well. Did these have a negative impact on science?

Of course not. What effectively blocked science was the total belief that aristotle (and other "authorities" the church decided on) was right and couldnt be questioned.

 

[Kharakov]

how come they don't jump all over your ass when you say stuff like that?

Like: not baseball or tomb bat, but noodley appendage bat? They know I'm a womb bat, metaphorically speaking.

 

[DLH]

Of course not. What effectively blocked science was the total belief that aristotle (and other "authorities" the church decided on) was right and couldnt be questioned.

Yes. Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy and would have an influence in turn on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome." Science And The Bible

So, you have the uninformed skeptic criticizing the Bible because of all of this which had nothing to do with the Bible outside of the Churches' arrogant misinterpretation.

 

[Juma]

So, you have the uninformed skeptic criticizing the Bible because of all of this which had nothing to do with the Bible outside of the Churches' arrogant misinterpretation.

What the heck are you talking about? That doesnt make any sense at all. Sure you answering the right post?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your definition of a "valid opinion" is "does it agree with the Bible?"


The subject is the Bible vs science, and in your view the Bible always wins because Jehovah.


All other opinions are invalid.


If I am misinterpreting your position then please feel free to explain an area where you think the Bible clearly got science dead wrong.




I'll wait...

There is no case of the Bible, when approaching the subject of true science, getting it wrong. There are only circumstances which science can't explain.

So is you position is that it is only historically incorrect?

 

[DLH]

So, you have the uninformed skeptic criticizing the Bible because of all of this which had nothing to do with the Bible outside of the Churches' arrogant misinterpretation.

What the heck are you talking about? That doesnt make any sense at all. Sure you answering the right post?

[Sigh] In a thread about conflicts between Science And The Bible you interjected that the overemphasis on books rather than observation "stopped" science, giving Aristotle as an example. I pointed out that Aristotle wrote about evolution and gave three more examples of Greek philosophers of ancient times who did, and asked you if you thought those were also responsible for stopping science. I had to explain this to you. You responded negatively and indicated Aristotle had a negative effect on the church through other authorities respected by the church. This, I assumed, was in reference to Galileo's objection to the church's incorrect interpretation of verses in the Bible. Which were inspired by Pythagoras, Aristotle, Ptolemy and Aquinas. To this day this is blamed on the Bible when the Bible made no conflicting statements against Galileo's correction.

What is so difficult about that?

- - - Updated - - -

There is no case of the Bible, when approaching the subject of true science, getting it wrong. There are only circumstances which science can't explain.

So is you position is that it is only historically incorrect?

Are you doing that on purpose? Misinterpreting my posts to mean the opposite of what they obviously mean? Of course that isn't my position.

 

[bilby]

OK, here it a non-absurd presentation for you:

Offspring take after their parents - that is, parental characteristics are, to a large extent, passed on to offspring.

Offspring are not, however, identical to their siblings.

Some inherited characteristics increase the likelihood that individuals who have that characteristic will have offspring; other characteristics increase the likelihood that individuals who have that characteristic will die before having offspring.

That's it; once you accept these three non-absurd statements of observable fact, you cannot logically escape the theory of evolution - which simply says that, over time, the traits that increase reproductive success will become common; while those that do not will become rare.

Given enough time, all of the variety of life we see today can arise via this simple mechanism.

If you don't think there has been enough time, given the sheer magnitude of the differences between different forms of life, then you don't have a problem with evolution; you have a problem with geology, physics, and cosmology.

What part of this do you consider 'absurd'?

I suspect that the descriptions of evolution that you have found to be absurd were not, in fact, descriptions of evolution, so much as distortions or misunderstandings of evolution. Such mangled absurdities are common; but as they are not actually descriptions of evolution, they can be ignored.

I am hugely impressed that you managed to get not just one, but three separate people to read my post, and to produce video responses to it, in such a short space of time.

Sadly, as I am not able to watch video online, your efforts were wasted. Although they really would be anyway, as I was asking YOU what YOU thought was absurd about my description of evolution.

Could you perhaps do me the courtesy of writing your own response to the question?

 

[Ford]

There is no case of the Bible, when approaching the subject of true science, getting it wrong. There are only circumstances which science can't explain.

So is you position is that it is only historically incorrect?

I think we've pretty well established his position. In Science v Bible, Bible always wins because Bible is word 'o Jehovah and science is stupid.


"But wait," you say "science works!"

Sorry, science doesn't. Bible works. Planes don't fall out of the sky because God wants them to fly. Aerodynamics and lift have nothing to do with it...all Jehovah.

"But what about medicine?"


Sorry, that's science, and science is dumb. That Advil you took to get rid of the throbbing headache you developed reading this thread? Might as well be a sugar pill. Your pain only goes away because Jehovah.

And as we've learned, the only reason there's a conflict over the Biblical flood story is that science is too dumb to explain how it really happened, because it really happened exactly as the Bible described it. Any explanation which contradicts the Bible is wrong because the Bible is always right. Maybe if science just threw up its hands and praised Jehovah, we'd get a lot more medicine and technology rained down upon us from Heaven.

 

[Sajara]

No. The Mosaic Law became obsolete - void - after Christ.

So Jesus was lying then when he reportedly said:
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."