Ok, I will get the quote for you if you explain to my wife why I do not get rid of books after I read them: Francis S. Collins: "The language of life", page 5: "The discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what use to be taught in high school biology."
I don't own that book, what year is it printed? And no "most" has not been turned over in high school biology books, pretty much is the same but thing has been added. The statement is an exaggeration to drive home a point - it is not meant to be taken in the way you seams to think it should.
Another book is: "The Half-Life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date". "Facts change all the time. Smoking has gone from doctor recommended to deadly. We used to think the Earth was the center of the universe and that the brontosaurus was a real dinosaur. In short, what we know about the world is constantly changing."
If Samule Arbesman really believes facts changes all the time then Saumel Arbesman is wrong. The word "facts" is often used in a very lose way and sometime it refers to things that actually is not facts but strong correlation (such as laws). You ride on a misunderstanding about the meaning of "facts" to prove a point. And sometime that is very subtle. One can say it is a theory that the Earth rotates around the sun or one can say it is fact. The evidence (which in itself can be theories but regarded as fact) supporting the theory that Earth revolves around the sun is so strong we call it a fact - there is no doubt in our mind this is the case. As a fact it can never be wrong. As a theory it can be wrong.
This is the distinction you need to understand when somebody says "facts can change"- what they actually means is that theories can change - facts cannot change because they are (postulated) truths within a certain theory!
Now compare science to the Bible. Science is in a constant state of revision and change, the books are always needing updated. The Bible has remained consistent and unchanged for over 3500 years.
Christ, you really gonna bring up this insanely bad argument why the bible must be true? Are you familiar with the explanation why this argument is wrong? (also note; an argument is not an evidence - an argument is just a collection of words - evidences are observations of reality == facts).
The Earth still rotates around the sun, even though we have replaced Newton with Einstein - the fact remains the same but the explanation of the facts can change. It is important you understand the distinction between a fact and a theory.
Science does not discarding what previously was known but is accumulating and refining its knowledge. The basic for this is Karl Popper
falsification requirement. This in contrast to religion which still maintains same old 2-3000 years old myth regardless of weather they been proven wrong or not. In other words, there is no to little development of knowledge in dogmatic religious practice, while science expands its knowledge every day....
That is what Samule Arbesman actually mean when he wrote "what we know about the world is constantly changing".
The Bible has passed the test of time and continues to remain steadfast and true. Each and every generation for the last 3500 years have proven the Bible to be true and relevant for their generalization.
No it hasn't passed "the test" - it has past your "test". It is just ignorant to claim this to be the general case. Secondly to stay the same, no matter what, and assert truth
is the very definition of a
dogma. The definition of
knowledge and
truth is not the same.
The only thing I can grant you is that in each generation there been some that found it relevant. But relevance does not prove truthfullness in any way.
