Science and the Bible

C Mc

Is there a relationship between Science and the Bible? For the Scriptures to be true, is it necessary for it to support science? What passages can you list to show that they supports science? I know the Bible is not a science textbook, but is there anything in it that goes beyond the spiritual? Do the Scriptures have anything to say about rock erosions, prism, nuclear fission, uniformitarianism, etc. Can the Bible be used in the science classroom?

In addition, are there any Bible-believing scientists who believed in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, as well as, the deity and the saving work of Jesus Christ? What says ye? CM

reformed

There is a relationship between TRUE science and the Bible. The Bible should be used in a classroom to give the account of origins as it has the account of the only single eyewitness and creator. Yes, there are many Bible-Believing scientists who get silenced by the overall community.

Believer2

, well this is merely mankind's supposition. In the begining there was God and created the HeavenS and the Earth..science did not do this.

Bill_Coley

@Believer2 posted:

, well this is merely mankind's supposition. In the begining there was God and created the HeavenS and the Earth..science did not do this.

Welcome to the forums!

In my view, science doesn't claim to "do" things; it claims - or at least seeks - to understand and explain things. For example, science doesn't make make hot air less dense than cold air, but it DOES explain the mechanism and consequences of that fact.

So while science isn't the cause of creation, it IS a reputable source of information about the manner in which creation unfolded, and how creation functions today.

[Deleted User]

So while science isn't the cause of creation, it IS a reputable source of information about the manner in which creation unfolded, and how creation functions today.

I would say this is not quite true .... since science folks were present at the time they can only make more or less possible guesses at how the universe was created and how it came about. Not all such backward oriented search leads to truth, it may also be faulty

Bill_Coley

@Wolfgang posted:

I would say this is not quite true .... since science folks were present at the time they can only make more or less possible guesses at how the universe was created and how it came about. Not all such backward oriented search leads to truth, it may also be faulty

I agree, Wolfgang, which is why in my previous post I wrote only that science "claims - or at least seeks - to understand and explain things," and that it is a "reputable source of information," NOT an infallible one.

Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Analogously, science might the least reliable source of information about how the earth and universe operate... except for all the others.

[Deleted User]

Winston Churchill said, ". . .

I don't care the least bit for what this warmonger "democracy cloaked" dictator said or did ... a war criminal mass murderer par excellence

reformed

Why do we need science to tell us the origins? We have an eyewitness account. That trumps any "science" that man can come up with thousands of years later.

Bill_Coley

@Wolfgang posted:

I don't care the least bit for what this warmonger "democracy cloaked" dictator said or did ... a war criminal mass murderer par excellence

You are of course welcome to your assessment of Mr. Churchill's conduct as a political leader, Wolfgang, but his conduct is irrelevant to the purpose for which I quoted him - namely, to employ the rhetorical structure of his well-known statement about democracy.

@reformed posted:

Why do we need science to tell us the origins? We have an eyewitness account. That trumps any "science" that man can come up with thousands of years later.

We need science to tell us about the origins of the universe because the two Genesis creation stories tell us much more about who than they do about how. It's hard to read about what's called the cosmic microwave background - both its origins and 1960's discovery - and not want to know more.

But to be clear: Science describes the how of creation, NOT the who.

[Deleted User]

We need science to tell us about the origins of the universe because the two Genesis creation stories tell us much more about who than they do about how.

Indeed ... but would the little they tell us about the how in their records about the who not be equally as true? If these records are true in what they record, can a science assumption or conclusion based on assumptions contradict what these records state and equally be true, or would of necessity one - either the science proposition or the Scripture record - be false?

It's hard to read about what's called the cosmic microwave background - both its origins and 1960's discovery - and not want to know more.

Is that because it is something that causes "itching ears" ?

From the Wikipedia article you linked above:

CMB is landmark evidence of the Big Bang origin of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. ...

I actually did not want to know more since what was stated there already contradicts what I have come to know from an overall scope of Scripture in regards to the creation and making of the universe .... which contradicts the idea of a bang and constantly expanding universe, just as it contradicts the ideas of a flat earth.

Bill_Coley

@Wolfgang posted:

Indeed ... but would the little they tell us about the how in their records about the who not be equally as true? If these records are true in what they record, can a science assumption or conclusion based on assumptions contradict what these records state and equally be true, or would of necessity one - either the science proposition or the Scripture record - be false?

In my view, the Genesis accounts have no intention to tell us how creation came to be. I understand them rather as faith accounts, worshipful testimonies to God's creative genius. If such "how" intentions are imposed on the Genesis accounts, however, then the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the accounts are "false."

Question: Why would God leave such compelling, nearly universally accepted scientific evidence that the universe was created in a process very different from the one described in Genesis? To fool or mislead humanity? What possible motive would God have for deception on such a grand scale? In my view, God gave us intellects and curiosities which over the millennia have produced ever-more accurate understandings of the origins of the universe. Bible writers were not - and had no intentions of being - scientists. They were people of faith, and their accounts testify to their faith, not to their scientific acumen.

I actually did not want to know more since what was stated there already contradicts what I have come to know from an overall scope of Scripture in regards to the creation and making of the universe .... which contradicts the idea of a bang and constantly expanding universe, just as it contradicts the ideas of a flat earth.

I don't understand your claim here. WHAT contradicts "the idea of a bang and constantly expanding universe, just as it contradicts the ideas of a flat earth"? And why do you raise the concept of a "flat earth" at all" in this discussion?

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) was one of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 20th century, and perhaps ever. How it was discovered - very much by accident - was a God thing, in my view, because it confirmed an integral component of science's basic understanding of the origins of the universe. But if the subject doesn't appeal to you, so be it.

[Deleted User]

Does anyone of the little older generation remember the scientist's factual predictions in the late 1960ies and early 1970ies that in about 30 years the oil production would come to an end because the fossil resource would be exhausted? How about the predictions made by "serious climate scientists" that the higher CO2 content in the air was beginning to start a new ice age (just the opposite of today's "scientific consensus" ?

What happened? were the scientists and their scientific "findings" (or more accurately "guesswork") reliable and we all just missed somehow what happened? or was the whole sort of a "scientific" scam ???

C Mc

"Our age is enamored with science. Science has put people on the moon, performed miracles on the operating table, and revolutionized our world with the computer chip. Science apart from God defines what we should believe and how we should live. Science has been so successful that disciplines such as history, psychology, and even theology would like to model themselves after it. Disciplines such as archaeology, geology, etc. can be helpful in confirming the Bible as long as they do not become the basis of our faith. They should never become the factor that determines whether the Bible is true. If we take such an approach, the Bible would no longer remain our authority, as it was in the apostolic church and in the Reformation. The basis of our faith and the guide to our life must always be Jesus and His Word". To start with and focus on philosophy, science, or tradition is to rob the Bible of its authority".

"Good science is observable, but evolution from molecules to man is not observable and should be assigned to an area called religion. It is not science!"

The Western world today still accepts this false philosophy which says that only science can tell us the truth about the origin of the universe, including the earth and life on it. In fact it would be true to say that most of the Western world is saturated with this positivistic misconception.

Don't confuse the created withe the Creator. CM

SOURCES:

-- A Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Antony Flew, London, Pan Books, 1984, pp. 214–215

-- Wolfgang Smith (physicist and philosopher), Cosmos and Transcendence: Breaking through the Barriers of Scientistic Belief, IL, Sherwin, Sugden & Co., 1984, 16.