Posted by Robert on August 25, 1999 at 11:51:51:
In Reply to: Theology is a science. posted by Douglas... on August 23, 1999 at 16:53:44:
Biblical "Science"--The question of whether or not the Bible is scientifically valid has been debated
for hundreds of years by critics and supporters alike. Biblicists have contended the book not only
supports science but contains many statements that are ahead of their time. The Bible supposedly has
great scientific wisdom and only now are we beginning to realize as much. Critics, such as myself,
believe the Bible is its own worst enemy. From our perspective there are more than enough
statements contained therein to forestall any claims to scientific precision. Indeed, many statements
clearly belong in the realm of mythology and folklore, while others are simply false. Some are so
vague it's difficult to know what is meant, so naturally, biblicists choose the more scientifically
oriented interpretation. Those believing the Bible to be scientifically precise and wise beyond its years
should read, digest, and remember the following assertions contained within its covers:
(a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
(b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
(c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
(d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
(e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
(f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
(g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
(h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
(i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
(j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
(k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
(l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt.
13:31-32 RSV);
(m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
(n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
(o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
(p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
(q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and
(r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).
Some statements are so vague that apologists can often evade dilemmas by creative rationalizations.
As Ingersoll said: "If the holy writer uses general terms, an ingenious theologian can harmonize a
seemingly preposterous statement with the most obdurate fact. (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 37). For
instance, Gen. 1:7-8 says: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under
the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament;... And god called the firmament
Heaven." Realizing the scientific implausibility inherent in this narration, some apologists attempt to
portray the firmament as nothing more than the atmosphere separating the moist clouds above from
the oceans below. Some biblical allegations are not only erroneous but have been fatal to their
adherents. For instance, Mark16:17-18 says: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my
name shall they cast out devils;.... They shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it
shall not hurt them." Not many believing Christians are willing to drink poisons or handle rattlesnakes
to prove the Bible's accuracy, although some have tried. Many individuals have died because they
put their trust in the Biblical injunction to pray ("And the prayer of faith shall save the sick," James
5:13-15) and, not wanting to make Asa's mistake (2 Chron. 16:12), shunned physicians.
The unscientific aspect of biblical teachings is also shown in the fact that many mythological
creatures are spoken of as if they were, in fact, real. The manner in which they are described and the
context within which this occurs show biblical writers felt they actually existed. Some of the
prominent examples are:
cockatrices (Jer. 8:17, Isa. 11:8 59:5),
unicorns (Deut. 33:17, Psalms 22:21. 29:6, Job 39:9-10),
satyrs (Isa. 34:14, 13:21)
fiery serpents (Num. 21:6),
and flying serpents (Isa. 14:29, 30:6).
Last, but not least, one should note the hundreds of miracles contained within the Bible. Perhaps
more than anything else they prove the Book lacks scientific validity. Miracles, by definition, have
supernatural causes, and science, by definition, doesn't work with the supernatural. In order to avoid
an extended discussion as to the existence of miracles, I will simply say that nearly all reputable
scientists deny their existence and feel all events have a natural, material cause. Believers in miracles
can never produce a supernatural event when asked to do so. Challenges are invariably left
unanswered. Any book claiming a woman turned into a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26), the sun went
backward 10 degrees on the sundial (2 Kings 20:11), and quails came from the sea (Num. 11:31) is
going to have great difficulty demonstrating its scientific precision to any reasonably scientific mind.
One can't help but recall the humorous instance in which an eight year old lad was asked by his
mother what he had learned at Sunday school. "Well," he said, "our teacher told us about when God
sent Moses behind enemy lines to rescue the Israelites from the Egyptians. When they came to the
Red Sea, Moses called for engineers to build a pontoon bridge. After they had all crossed, they all
looked back and saw the Egyptian tanks coming. Moses radioed headquarters on his walkie-talkie to
send bombers to blow up the bridge and save the Israelites."
"Bobby," exclaimed his mother, "is that really the way your teacher told you that story?"
"Not exactly, Mom, but if I told it her way you'd never believe it."
Virtually every child has heard about the parting of the Red Sea, the whale swallowing Jonah, the
stick turning into a snake, and Jesus' walking on water. In fact, many people begin their critical
analysis of the Bible by doubting the authenticity of these stories. Logic, reason, and skepticism
accompany a scientific mentality; not one of faith and uncritical belief.
In recent years the conflict between science and the Bible has become especially pronounced with
respect to the struggle between evolution and Creationism. The battle has been, and is being, fought
in many forms--e.g. the schools, libraries, and courts. BE will not enter the fray because the subject
matter not only lies outside the Bible per se, but is highly technical and of little interest to many
people. Few scientists and even fewer laymen really understand the intricacies of all the sciences that
are involved in a really thorough discussion of evolution. Paleontology, geology, biology, astronomy,
archeology, chemistry, and anthropology are some of the disciplines one must comprehend in order
to proceed wisely. However, it is interesting to note how the struggle between science and the Bible
has evolved. Originally, scientific findings were denounced as blasphemous lies. But as science has
expanded and the evidence has mounted, many apologists have adopted a more realistic stance. They
have increasingly rewritten the Bible by either changing literal statements to figurative meanings or
alleging, "What the Bible really meant was..." For example, they assert the seven days of Creation
weren't really days; they were eras or epochs. When the Bible describes miracles it doesn't mean to
imply they exist. It is merely relating instances in which naive people were fooled by trickery and
other mechanisms. With characteristic wisdom, Ingersoll took note of this slow evolutionary change:
"The church disputed every step, denied every fact, resorted to every device that cunning could
suggest or ingenuity execute, but the conflict could not be maintained. The Bible, so far as geology
was concerned, was in danger of being driven from the earth. Beaten in the open field, the church
began to equivocate, to evade, and to give new meanings to inspired words. Finally, falsehood having
failed to harmonize the guesses of barbarians with the discoveries of genius, the leading churchmen
suggested that the Bible was not written to teach astronomy, was not written to teach geology, and
that it was not a scientific book,....(Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 11, p.220)." "In matters of fact, the Bible
has ceased to be a regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology.
A few years ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the Bible. The tables
have been turned, now, Religion is endeavoring to prove that the Bible is not inconsistent with
science. The standard has been changed." (Ibid. Vol. 2, p. 242). "In other words, the standard has
been changed; the ancient is measured by the modern, where the literal statement in the Bible does
not agree with modern discoveries, they do not change the discoveries, but give new meanings to the
old account. We are not now endeavoring to reconcile science with the Bible, but to reconcile the
Bible with science. (Ibid. Vol. 8, p. 151). Only staunch fundamentalists continue trying to erase the
handwriting on the wall. In the 5th chapter of Daniel, Belshazzar didn't try to erase the unpleasant
handwriting on the wall. He listened and acted accordingly. One would think believers in the Bible
would learn from his experience. In summary, the Bible is not inerrant with respect to science. Many
statements reflect the era in which they were written and assertions to the contrary are weak at best.