Science And The Bible

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Science And The Bible

Post #1

Post by DavidLeon »

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept as a philosophy would have an influence in 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.

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

For debate, what significance does modern science bear upon an accurate understanding of the Bible? How important is science to the modern day Bible believer and where is there a conflict between the two?
I no longer post here

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #101

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #95]
You can demonstrate something to be true that is completely false or something false that is true. Your demonstration is as fallible as you are.
This certainly is consistent with your comment that you are largely ignorant of science and how it works, and disinterested in it as well. If something has been demonstrated to be true, then it cannot be then be demonstrated to be false or else it was not demonstrated to be true in the first place. Use of the word demonstrated implies absolute confirmation, not a "maybe."

The heliocentric model of our solar system has been demonstrated to be correct, and no amount of scientific (or other) fooling around can change that result. It has been positively demonstrated to be true and cannot be demonstrated to be false. There are many other subjects in this same category as far as scientific results. You seem to be referring to ambiguous topcs, or open problems yet to be solved, etc. which are a completely different category.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #102

Post by DavidLeon »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:00 amThis certainly is consistent with your comment that you are largely ignorant of science and how it works, and disinterested in it as well. If something has been demonstrated to be true, then it cannot be then be demonstrated to be false or else it was not demonstrated to be true in the first place. Use of the word demonstrated implies absolute confirmation, not a "maybe."
Right. So something that is demonstrated true has been done infallibly? Science determines something is true and there is no self correction. Peer review simply means that science agrees on it.

On fossil evidence it can be said: "Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions" (Spectator, The University of Iowa, April 1973, p. 4) and "Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive." (New Scientist, "Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?" by John Reader, March 26, 1981, p. 802)

Take some meticulously documented thousands year old manuscripts, reported by the people who experienced them and sweep them under the carpet because, though they contain a great deal that can be corroborated with other sources, it contains relatively small portions that you can't explain (science is a method or attempt of explanation) while simultaneously maintaining that a few fragments of jawbone and scull ... demonstrated in the photograph below:

Image

Which produced the following demonstrable truth for nearly half a century:

Image

Until it was revealed to be a hoax in a proccess that looked much like this:

Image
Last edited by DavidLeon on Sat Jun 20, 2020 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I no longer post here

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #103

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #102]
Science determines something is true and there is no self correction. Peer review simply means that science agrees on it.
Another demonstration of your lack of understanding of how the process works. The hoax example you gave illustrates this perfectly. If there was no self-correction this hoax would still be accepted as a good scientific result. But it isn't because there were people skeptical of the whole thing and they investigated it further, turned over stones to find evidence to support it, or not, and at the end of the day science showed that it was nothing more than a good hoax. The process worked, even it it took a while. Dishonest people exist in all fields of human activity ... science is no exception, because it is practiced by humans.

Peer review of journal publications does not simply mean that "science agrees on it." I have over 100 referred journal publications and served as one of several editors of a spectroscopy journal in the 80s and 90s. So I can describe firsthand how the process works. First, an individual, or a group of researchers, thinks they have a useful scientific result and they write it up in a manuscript. This is usually first reviewed by their colleagues at their institution, then it is submitted to a journal for consideration for publication. The journal then sends the manuscript out to several experts in the field for formal reviews and comments. This can result in the paper being rejected, or modifications suggested, or it could (rarely) be accepted as is. This process may iterate for several cycles in some cases, and eventually the journal makes a decision on whether to publish the paper, or not. At this point only a very few people have seen the manuscript. The journal publication process is what makes the information available to everyone, and that is when the real peer review starts as it is now widely disseminated and far more people can throw darts at it. Until then, essentially no one has seen it. Every year there are papers that are withdrawn, or errata are published, or letters to the editor where some aspect of the paper may be discussed. This can go on for some time if there are controversial results. It is not some process where a few scientists agree with the results and that is the end of it. If something is wrong, it will eventually be found out ... just like your hoax example which every anti-evolutionst I've ever encountered throws out for the exact same reason you did.

The fossil record comments you gave are 40-50 years old (!) and are so out of date they are useless. Look at this list of human fossils, and the dates when they were found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

Note how many are after the latest date (1981) in your quotes. This is how science works. Each time a new fossil is found (piece of the puzzle) it is used to try and fill in gaps in our understanding of human evolution. It doesn't stop because someone made ignorant comments on the fossil record from 40-50 years ago. That is also so long ago it ignores nearly all of the genetics work applied to this subject, which has confirmed many of the inferences from the fossil record. Huxters pulling hoaxes like Piltdown Man do not discredit science for people who understand how it actually does work.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #104

Post by DavidLeon »

Sorry, DrNoGods, I thought I had responded to this but it seems I haven't. I must have started it and got distracted then forgot. I think that happens. I'm getting old.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:15 am
DavidLeon wrote:As for religion I didn't say anything about religion, I said intelligent design.
And you don't think the phrase "intelligent design" can be equated to the god of a religion? It certainly is the common interpretation. What would this intelligent designer be if not a god of some sort?
Most of the religions have no concept of God as we would think of God. Besides, even if you are referring to Abrahamic religions specifically I don't want to be lumped in with their understanding of ID which is based primarily upon traditional interpretation that isn't anywhere near accurate or supported by the Bible. So, if you want to bring that up it's another can of worms, so I clarify that their interpretation isn't likely mine.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:15 am [quoteDavidLeon]Also placing Galileo under house arrest, absolving sins for money, Burning William Tyndale and Joan of Arc, Terrorizing Jews and Muslims, child molestation and it's cover up, inquisitions, crusades, the immortal soul of Socrates, trinity of Plato, cross from Constantine, cakes with naked young boys popping out, meddling in politics ...
What does any of that have to do with my example of a religion accepting evolution? I was only giving an example of that situation, not claiming the Catholic church has never done anything wrong.[/quote]

Well, it's irrelevant. First of all, because I've already stated that I'm not interested in defending the distorted and uninformed exploits of apostate religion. Secondly they've adopted all sorts of teachings that were contrary to the Bible, some of which I've listed above.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:15 am
DavidLeon wrote:If Adam didn't exist he didn't sin and so what need of a savior? The entire meaning of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation can be summed up as the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.
That is how the story goes, but the question is whether or not any of it is true. If Adam is a fictional character in a fictional tale, then the entire bible is just more fiction. You could make the same analogy for a character from Harry Potter.
It isn't like you have to inform me that the reason you think what you believe about evolution is superior to what I believe about creation invalidates creation so watering down what I believe with what you believe is the ends that justify the means. The question is, wouldn't it be arrogant, foolish and myopic to do that? To what end would that be. Careful, some of what I believe may backwash and the next thing you know your grandchildren are worshiping at the altar of a god in the name of your metaphysical theory.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:15 am
Belief in evolution negates the Bible.
OK ... if that is your view. People having afterlives, living to 900+ years old, living inside the belly of a fish for longer than they can hold their breath, a global flood wiping out all air-breathing life that wasn't on a big boat only 4300 years ago, etc. etc. also pretty much negates the bible, or at least relegates it to the fiction section of the library.
That's your uninformed opinion. With life happening by chance being one in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 you failed metaphysical experiment of the theoretical will undoubtedly be waiting for a long time before the Bible joins it there and that's only your prequel. Never mind your academic version of planet of the apes.
I no longer post here

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3000 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #105

Post by brunumb »

DavidLeon wrote: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:36 am With life happening by chance being one in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 you failed metaphysical experiment of the theoretical will undoubtedly be waiting for a long time before the Bible joins it there and that's only your prequel. Never mind your academic version of planet of the apes.
Please show your working for that probability. Note that you will also need to provide the exact mechanism to which your probability calculation applies.

But it really doesn't matter how low the probability is anyway. If it is not zero then the event can occur, which is precisely what happened with regard to living things.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #106

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #104]
It isn't like you have to inform me that the reason you think what you believe about evolution is superior to what I believe about creation invalidates creation so watering down what I believe with what you believe is the ends that justify the means.
You're missing a fundamental point. Evolution has been shown to be a correct theory for how life can diversify over time via observation and evidence. Lots of it. Not one of the many dozens of creation stories described by various religions have any observation or evidence to support them. None. So if I have to choose which to believe is correct, I'll take the one which is supported by physical evidence. It isn't like we're debating a piece of art whose interpretation is entirely subjective. Evolution is a scientific theory and got to that point because it has been confirmed by evidence. Creation stories have no such pedigree.
That's your uninformed opinion. With life happening by chance being one in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 you failed metaphysical experiment of the theoretical will undoubtedly be waiting for a long time before the Bible joins it there and that's only your prequel. Never mind your academic version of planet of the apes.
I'll second brunumb and ask how you arrived at 10^113. But as he correctly points out, it did happen and the question is whether it was by chance, or by the actions of a "creator" of some sort. We don't know the answer to that yet, but the existence of any such creator has never been confirmed. So I'd give the same probability to that being the answer as you give to a natural mechanism that we simply have yet to figure out. Just because we don't know the answer yet does not mean it defaults to "god did it." Creators only exist by a belief that they do, so it is hard to attribute anything at all to such an entity until one of them makes itself known.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #107

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

The Bible starts off with "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", and this was said back when no one (religious, or otherwise) was thinking about a finite universe.

Fast forward thousands of years later, we now have scientific confirmation that the universe had a beginning, which is what the Bible was on the record for saying all along.

So, science caught up with religion..and must/will continue to do so.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #108

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #107]
So, science caught up with religion..and must/will continue to do so.
What do you say about other religions that have completely different creation stories than whatever religion you practice? Are those descriptions wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Most of these creation myths were made up long before science could explain nature at anywhere near the level it can now, and science never "catches up" with religion. But it certainly can, and has, disproven many of the old religious stories (eg. Noah's flood, a 6000 year old Earth, people living to 900+ years, etc.) and shown them to be nothing but fiction. Fortunately, science does not consider religious myths as it carries on figuring out how nature actually does work, independent of any religious fairy tales. This is a good thing.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Peter
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:46 pm
Location: Cape Canaveral
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #109

Post by Peter »

[For debate, what significance does modern science bear upon an accurate understanding of the Bible? How important is science to the modern day Bible believer and where is there a conflict between the two?]

IMHO any application of science to the Bible renders the latter meaningless insofar as something to explain anything about the natural world. It’s still a storybook I suppose.

The Bible has steadily retreated in the face of science and will continue to do so every time there is a conflict between the two.
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Science And The Bible

Post #110

Post by EarthScienceguy »

There is no conflict between the Bible and Science. The conflict is between the Biblical world view and an atheistic world view. Both world views use all the same data, but they interpret it according to their world view.

Take for example comets:

Comets can not exist longer than 10,000 years and yet there are all kinds of comets around. Those that believe in the atheistic world view believe that there is some sort of oort cloud out beyond the orbit of Pluto where there are billions of comets just waiting to be perturbed and head towards the sun. The oort cloud has never been observed it is taken by faith. They also have to take by faith that Mercury was once much much larger with a liquid core like the Earth's. You see there are many things like this that those that believe in an atheistic world view have to take by faith. Usually, it is explained away with another belief that science will eventually know all the answers to our questions.

The best science can do is make and record observations and then show that these observations are repeatable and then explain why they are repeatable.

Anything outside of recorded observation is not science it is belief.

Evolution is a belief. These great morphological changes that evolutionist talk about as fact takes "millions" of years to form.

Post Reply