Science VS the Bible

[Hawkins]

That makes no sense.

You don't know science then. Simple!

 

[Hmm]

This is the nature of what science itself is. You establish a theory, use it to predict. Your prediction doesn't come to pass your theory is falsified. Your prediction 100% comes to pass, it is proved.

If your prediction becomes true, it supports the theory but doesn't prove it. Newton's laws of motion and gravity accurately predict the movement of "everyday" objects such as artillery and the planets in the Solar system. But this didn't prove his theory. When scientists were able to study very large masses such as galaxies Newton's law of gravity does not work and another theory, the General Theory of Relativity, has to be used instead. Similarly, for very small or very fast objects such as electrons or light, Quantum Mechanics must be used. When you look at both very massive but also very small objects such as black holes (they are very small for their mass) or at the very origin or the universe where it's thought the whole mass of the universe was contracted to a single point then neither of
these theories work - the equations break down and result in infinities. This is why a unified theory such as string theory is being sought: one Theory of Everything that can explain both the large scale and the small scale universe.

So you can see that you can't prove theories. Newton's theory of gravity could explain the motion of everything we could observe for a few hundred years and is still used today aeronautics etc. but this didn't mean it's correct. It's not wrong either, it's just limited in its scope as is Einstein's theory of gravity, the General Theory of Relativity, and every other theory we have. Even if we can get a Theory of Everything that can explain everything we've ever observed we still won't know that there's nothing out there and that it won't be able to explain so we won't ever be able to prove it. We will always be able to disprove it by finding something that it can't predict.

 

[Hmm]

You don't know science then. Simple!

Prove it

 

[BobRyan]

One thing that I've never understood is why people think science and religion can't mix.

Agreed they fit perfectly.

Until someone comes along and starts changing the definition of the term "science".

 

[BobRyan]

This was a long time ago so my recollection might not be 100% accurate. It was a television show about trying to apply scientific principles to explain events in the bible. The 'scientists' were going out of their way to try to debunk the bible, but I paid them little mind. What it was about was explaining the destruction of Sodom and Gamora.

First question - do scientists claim "cows can't do anything"? so that if you see a broken fence and claim "That cow over there did it" they will say "That is unscientific - that fence did that by itself"??

Second question - do scientists claim "Engineers can't do anything"?? so that if that plane takes off and lands perfectly - and you say "That is because aeronautical engineers (and a lot of other professionals working in the realm of applied science) built it".

Does the "scientist" then say "no that would be unscientific!! that blob of metal and parts just did that by itself"!!

In your example above the scientists start with "God never does anything" - and then try to "Find that no-god solution" to whatever you are describing.

 

[BobRyan]

I like to think that science just explains the complexity behind God’s creation.

Indeed - science "observations in nature" can tell you the "what" it is that exists right in front of you-- and to the extent they can repeat it in the lab can tell you "the how" -- or at least show one of the ways that it can exist that way.

The fact that the thing exists - is science fact. The description of its parts and observing how it functions is science fact.

But be verrrrrry careful here - because some things get injected into that term "science" that have far flung agendas.

 

[BobRyan]

Science vs Faith is a false dichotomy

Science is the discovery of Gods created order. To the extent it pursues truth it cannot be contrary to God since God is absolute truth.

Indeed God created all life on Earth just as He said - that is fact.

Science deals with the discovery of it and adding that to our understanding of it.

 

[BobRyan]

Even the most prominent figures of empiricism (John Locke), the scientific revolution (Newton) and the Enlightenment (Voltaire) did not claim that scientific questions were the same category as metaphysical/religious questions.

If one is very meticulous and careful - that can be preserved. The problem that people get into is that they take that idea and try to get atheist's to be "the gold standard" for science. The idea being if you make a statement in your observations in nature - that an atheist would not agree with -- then by definition "it is not science" it is religion. And then the atheist picks up the ball and adds to it the idea - "I have a certain doctrine on origins that I need as an atheist -- if your observations are not compatible with my doctrine on origins - then it is you that is not being scientific".

 

[BobRyan]

You have 4 choices...

1. The Bible is correct when it comes to its historic account of how it is that all life on earth gets here in a literal 7 day week as we see defined in legal code - Exodus 20:11, and Moses was not a darwinist nor a teacher of darwinism in his Gen 1-2 statements see also Genesis 2:1-3. Science fact is in perfect harmony with this fact of origins in the same way that a hurricane making landfall is a real event and science sees the result of what actually happened, observations in nature help us understand the fact.

2. The Bible account for origins is myth or maybe allegory or something of that sort (even though it is in legal code in Ex 20:11) and therefore is compatible with any doctrine on origins including any and every form of evolution past, present or future - and of course evolution is science fact.

3. The Bible account for origins cannot be bent at all in favor of evolution - but evolution is science fact, so the Bible is wrong. (Atheism)

4. The Bible account cannot be bent to fit evolution, evolution is science fact, the Bible is wrong on this point but I "feel" the Bible is ok anyway, it does not matter if it is wrong on such things.

Many non-Christians describe Christians this way.. And my guess is that some Christians might describe themselves this way.

==============

Am curious to know how many people here would be willing to limit yourself to just being allowed to select option 2 or option 4 above (since I assume no one on this forum is atheist option 3 is not valid for this group)

 

[Hmm]

Could there be an option 5 though, that the Bible isn't a scientific book but a spiritual book and so isn't in conflict with evolution?

I believe that evolution is a fact and it's the mechanism that God chose to bring life about. I guess this means "random mutation" is not entirely random but has, as one of its goals at least, the development of the human body and that this process did take many millions of years. It's harder to explain the evolution of the human mind and it's characteristics of reason, morality, creativity and spirituality and so on. The Bible says that our creation as being made in the image of God was part of His original plan. I don't know how this was achieved through evolution but I believe it was!

To go back to the OP's question.of why people think science and religion don't mix, I think it's because this is the way it's n been presented to them since the Enlightenment. Most scientists throughout Western history never thought this but believed that studying physical nature was a way of learning about it's creator, that the intelligibility of nature and mathematics implied the rationality of God. I think most people now though think that if something is not scientifically "proven", it's not really true and that if it doesn't physically exist ot doesn't really exist. So that we are brains rather than minds for example because when we look at brains under a microscope all we see is tissue and blood vessels, we don't see any thoughts. But religion, most philosophy and even modern physics which shows that matter isn't as solid as we once thought it was, indicated that actually the opposite is true and that reality is fundamentally mind-like in some way and that physical reality derives from that.

 

[BobRyan]

Could there be an option 5 though, that the Bible isn't a scientific book but a spiritual book and so isn't in conflict with evolution?

That is supposed to be option 2 - I have updated it.

 

[BobRyan]

To go back to the OP's question.of why people think science and religion don't mix, I think it's because this is the way it's n been presented to them since the Enlightenment. Most scientists throughout Western history never thought this but believed that studying physical nature was a way of learning about it's creator, that the intelligibility of nature and mathematics implied the rationality of God.

almost every branch of science was originated by Christians who believed the Bible and were not darwinists in most cases since the 1844 manuscript had not yet been written they would not be thinking "yes but Darwin said...".

Christians who accept the Bible as it reads never had a problem with science descriptions of nature as in
Pv=nRT
y=ae^(kt)
F=ma
Krebs cycle
Calvin cycle
A^2 + B^2 = C^2

etc.
None of that was ever an issue for believing the Bible. Science fact is funny that way. (observations in nature being as they are )

So then to put it another way - adenosine triphosphate is a source of potential chemical energy in the cell even if you believe in the accuracy of the Bible, even if you believe in the Gospel, even if you believe God's historic account of Genesis 1-2 is entirely accurate.

Science fact... I love it.

 

[BobRyan]

the Bible isn't a scientific book but a spiritual book

This is an important point. The entire Bible is spiritual - because it is the work of God - the Holy Spirit. It is truth that comes directly from God Himself

Rom 7
"14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin."

So then "honor your father and mother" -- spiritual
"Do not take God's name in vain" -- spiritual
The virgin birth of Christ -- spiritual

And since , as you say, "the entire Bible is a spiritual book":
The trinity - spiritual
The bodily resurrection of Christ -- spiritual
The bodily ascension of Christ -- spiritual

They are all events and details that are in real history and yet all of them spiritual in that the Holy Spirit informs us of them.

We don't get a "science text book showing us how to incarnate God the Son into human flesh" - as your point appears to affirm. It is a fact that happened in real life, in nature - but we did not get the science text to go with it to show us how to do that in our backyard.

When Paul says in Romans 7 "the Law is spiritual" he is not using a term that means that "mothers and fathers are not real" or not a part of events in real life, in nature.

The term "is spiritual" does not mean there was not virgin birth of Christ in real life, in nature - a fact of real events, real history.

 

[Jipsah]

Atheists, like you, are brainwashed without their own full awareness. Who can do this, by blinding the mass? A capable being as I can tell!

Get a grip, Hawk. The bro spoke a simple truth, and you're replying with nonsensical abuse. Uncool.

 

[Jipsah]

To make it simply for you. How many humans ever verified the truth that black holes exist, including those in the scientific community? Tell us!!!!!!!!!

You can do it yourself, nothing prevents you. All the data is there, all the heavy lifting has been done for you. If they've done their sums wrong, let everyone know. That's how science works.

 

[Jipsah]

Not true. As long as a science can be predictably modeled with falsifiability, it is considered proved!

Nope, that isn't how science works.

 

[BobRyan]

. Science is not the testimony of a elite few, it is publicly verifiable. Science never claims absolute truth - scientific theory can only be disproved, never proved

I do like your thinking at that point.

 

[Jipsah]

Your prediction 100% comes to pass, it is proved.

No. It's made stronger, but it isn't proven, unless of course you can demonstrate that thet there is no data of any kind unconsidered or unknown, that would in any way affect the validity of the theory.

Water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen.

So far, and under normal prevailing conditions.

 

[BobRyan]

As an example,

Water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. Everyone can make such a prediction before lab.

Do you mean "evaporates" into water vapor -- (so then still H2O) or do you mean as in electrolysis so then a cathode and anode and getting 2xH and O by volume?

Once proved, no scientific effort nor funding will go to the research of whether water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen .

I assume you are talking about something like electrolysis.

So then once that observation in nature is made - that experiment gets stuck in a lot of lab text books to be repeated 100's of thousands of times every year by high school students in labs all across the U.S..

Is that what you are talking about??

 

[BobRyan]

One thing that I've never understood is why people think science and religion can't mix. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

agreed they are not mutually exclusive.

NaCl is salt even on Christian tables and reading the Bible does not stop them from noticing the properties that salt has.