Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Science, Religion, Bible
Email this Topic • Print this Page

An enjoyable read follows this introduction.

(By John MacArthur)

Introduction

The famous evolutionist Julian Huxley once said, "Any view of God as a personal being is becoming frankly untenable. The difficulty of understanding the functions of a personal ruler in a universe which the march of knowledge is showing us ever more clearly as self-ordered and self-ordering in every minutest detail is becoming more and more apparent" (Essays of a Biologist [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1923], p. 217). His sentiments were echoed by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell: "That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand" ("A Free Man's Worship" in Selected Papers of Bertrand Russell [New York: The Modern Library, 1927], p. 3). Others have said that as science finds explanations of natural phenomena, God becomes smaller and smaller. Once God was the Almighty; now science is the almighty.

Our Christian faith is under constant attack. Many in our day would tell us that there is a conflict between science and Scripture, that the Bible reflects a pre-scientific world view and is scientifically inaccurate. We are told we are faced with a choice between the facts of science and the fantasy of Scripture. The conflict stems from the fact that, all too often, science has overstepped its bounds. Instead of being a method of discovering knowledge, it has become an all- encompassing world view. No one has stated that more clearly than the British mathematician Karl Pearson: "The goal of science is clear--it is nothing short of the complete interpretation of the universe" (cited by Gordon H. Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952], p. 201)...

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 17,459 • Replies: 348

No top replies

There was never good cause to think there is or could be a god. Science is not the agent of the killing of the myth, but the lack of evidence alone.

0 Replies

There has always been good cause. Proof? That is another matter. Confused

:wink:

0 Replies

0 Replies

B. The Peril of Scientism

As Christians we accept the facts of science. What we do not accept are the interpretations of those facts offered by some scientists. There is no conflict between the established facts of science and the Bible, though scientists often make unproved assumptions (such as the theory of evolution) that do conflict with Scripture. Although the Bible is written in everyday language and doesn't use modern scientific terminology, that does not mean it is scientifically inaccurate. Indeed, many of the world's greatest scientists have accepted the authority of the Bible, such as Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Lister, Pasteur, Kelvin, and others.

The conflict between science and Scripture comes when science steps outside the realm of that which is observable and reproducible and speculates on origins, values, and destinies. At that point science has ceased to be science and instead become a religious viewpoint, since those things are not subject to observation and experimentation.

Same source.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

The conflict between science and Scripture comes when science steps outside the realm of that which is observable and reproducible and speculates on origins, values, and destinies. At that point science has ceased to be science and instead become a religious viewpoint, since those things are not subject to observation and experimentation.

Whoever said that simply doesn't understand science.

Science requires that evidence be observable, and experiments be reproducible. It does not require that theories be observable or reproducible, before they may be considered scientific facts.

0 Replies

Of course a 'theory' cannot be 'observed' ros.

Where do you think anyone said that?

A theory is simply an explanation.

But that explanation must be supported by observation.

Evolution fails this test because no one has ever observed it occurring, nor is there any other evidence that 'only evolution explains'.

Evolution is purposely defined vaguely and in great generalities that cannot be falsified.

Common morphology is said to indicate common ancestry. Except when it doesn't. Laughing

Any change in a population (such as blond hair becoming less common as time goes on) is hailed as 'microevolution. And 'any fool can see that enough small changes will add up to big changes'.

So in this way ANYthing can be pointed to as evidence of evolution.

If instead blondes were becoming MORE numerous, that would also be considered evidence of evolution.

It's unfalsifiable.

0 Replies

BS RL, the very aspect of making a counter- prediction and carrying it to a conclusion is a way of falsifiability in evo/devo.
We are at a time in our understanding of evolution that we can predict WHERE and intermediate fossil may be found.

Quote:

A theory is simply an explanation.

But that explanation must be supported by observation.

In science a theory is an explanation in which ALL the data supports and NONE of the existing data refutes. You seem to leave that second part out in your preachings :wink:

The problem with literal interpretations in religion is that such literalism always paints one into a corner.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

...In science a theory is an explanation in which ALL the data supports and NONE of the existing data refutes...

ros wrote:

...It does not require that theories be observable or reproducible, before they may be considered scientific facts.

Which is it?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
...In science a theory is an explanation in which ALL the data supports and NONE of the existing data refutes...

ros wrote:
...It does not require that theories be observable or reproducible, before they may be considered scientific facts.

Which is it?

It's both. Those statements are not mutually exclusive.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
farmerman wrote:
...In science a theory is an explanation in which ALL the data supports and NONE of the existing data refutes...

ros wrote:
...It does not require that theories be observable or reproducible, before they may be considered scientific facts.

Which is it?

It's both. Those statements are not mutually exclusive.

How can ALL the data (of something) be supported - having never been observed or reproduced?

0 Replies

A datum only becomes a datum if it has already been observed.

0 Replies

can you say obtuse. BD, your comment isnt even a good sentence. Its the THEORY, that is supported by the data (evidence). Also NO data (evidence) refutes the theory.
Maybe we didnt see a murder happen but there is a load of forensic evidence. Its that sort of thing.

Youre just stalling for some reason. Theories in science have a much higher order of meaning. After all these many years on A2k, youd think most people would "get it". Apparently not.

0 Replies

They don't want to "get it." It is one of the foundations of the poofism of bobble-thumpers that a theory is "just a theory," something in the nature of random speculation. Bobble-thumpers don't want to acknowledge a theory as a higher-order explanation of the data, which isn't contradicted by the data, because they want to make the pathetic claim that a scriptural fairy tale can have the same value as a scientific theory.

0 Replies

Mornin' Farmer;

I'm a little taken aback by the claim that "NONE of the existing data refutes."

Did I miss something?

Of course, I have not had MY coffee yet. . .

0 Replies

Maybe you do need some coffee--that's the principle of falsifiability. If any portion of a theory can be shown to be false, based on the data, then the theory must either be revised to account for all the data, or discarded. A theory is only viable so long as none of the data refute the statement(s) which constitute the theory.

0 Replies

Yes, it is the principle implied by evolutionists when they say they have evidence that 'only evolution explains' (i.e . their evidence falsifies the possibility of creation).

But when asked exactly what evidence can 'only be explained by evolution' the silence is deafening.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Yes, it is the principle implied by evolutionists when they say they have evidence that 'only evolution explains' (i.e . their evidence falsifies the possibility of creation).

But when asked exactly what evidence can 'only be explained by evolution' the silence is deafening.

:wink:

0 Replies

That is a false characterization of how a scientific theory functions. If someone proposes a scientific theory, they are saying that the theory they have laid out is supported by all the known data, and is not refuted by any of the known data. No scientific theory states that no other explanation is possible, science functions on the basis of finding any explanation which is supported by the known data, and which is not refuted by any of the known data--so any other explanation which is supported by all the data, and which is not refuted by any of the data would lead to a revision of a theory, or the discarding of the theory. As for silence from those who accept a theory of evolution, just as soon as you provide an example of known data which refutes the theory of evolution, and can demonstrate within scientific standards that this is true, then the theory would be revised to account for the data you present, or discarded if that is not possible. You, however, simply express incredulity, while presenting no data to refute the theory--for example, when you say that you find it hard to believe that eyes can evolve separately on several occasions. What you find difficult to believe does not constitute data which refutes the theory. No one here, however, is foolish enough to think that you will put your money where your mouth is.

0 Replies

Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know