OD+  Lifetime Member 

diary contents
diary notes
diarist profile
entry calendar
tag index

Find a Diary

 
Sane Wailings
by Atheist Under Ur Bed
Location: Jumpingoutfromtheshadows
  

Monday School: Science vs. The Bible (1) 10/9/2000


Welcome back to Monday School! "The Fast-Acting Antidote For Any Mind Poisons They May Have Fed You Yesterday!"

Today's Lesson: Does Science Confirm Or Refute The Bible?

Many people seem to believe that there is no conflict between modern scientific knowledge and the Bible. Many say that science and the Bible either reveal a common truth, or deal with truths that do not overlap.

I disagree with both these sets of people. I believe an objective examination of the evidence reveals many sharp disagreements between the findings of science and many of the specific truth claims of the Bible.

Consider:

1) Miracles The Bible claims many miracles have occurred. That is to say, the Bible claims that God and His agents have repeatedly intervened in human affairs in ways which defy the known laws of physics. Creation was a miracle. The Flood was a miracle. The plagues sent to Egypt were miracles. The parting of the Red Sea was a miracle. The ancient Hebrews won wars with the help of miracles. Mary's conception of Jesus was a miracle, his birth was heralded by miracles, he performed miracles, his resurrection was a miracle, his followers allegedly can perform miracles, his return will be another miracle. Miracles by their very nature are contrary to science and logic. Science and logic depend upon natural laws operating predictably and always, everywhere. Miracles - by definition - constitute a violation of natural law. To say that something is a miracle is to say that in a certain place, at a certain time, the laws of logic and science were violated. By their very nature, miracles are beyond the reach of rationality.

Taking it one step further: Science and logic say that when two explanations explain a set of facts equally well, the simpler explanation is to be preferred. If facts and forces we know exist can explain an event, there is no need to hypothesize unknown facts and forces.

The Bible presents us with mere words on paper. Those words claim that countless miracles have occurred. One explanation for these claims is that these miracles somehow actually occurred. Other explanations include that the people who wrote about or allegedly witnessed these miracles were hallucinating, mistaken about what they saw, or lying. Science and logic demand that we believe these latter explanations before we believe the former. After all, we know that people hallucinate, make poor witnesses, and lie. We have no reason to believe that the laws of physics can be violated.

But the Bible actually expects us to believe these miracles occurred instead. And its authors apparently expect us to believe they occurred without offering us any evidence. They don't understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - not blind faith. In this they are profoundly anti-science and illogical.

Finally, even if we grant that the miracles of the Bible did occur, that is no reason to grant that they prove what the Bible or its followers claim they do. Once one denies the connection between reality and science/logic, all bets are off. Reality becomes chaotic - not necessarily God-directed. The Bible itself seems to understand this when it says that Pharaoh's own magicians performed miracles (Deut. 13:1-3), and again when it says that false Christs shall arise and perform miracles of their own (Matt. 24:23-24 and Mark 13:21-22). If miracles can have an ungodly cause, they cannot be used to prove God. In effect - according to the very Bible which claims their existence - miracles are irrelevant and pointless.

2) Creation The Bible story of Creation contradicts modern science in many, many ways. Among them:

A) Figures given by the Bible allow one to calculate that the universe was created approximately 6000 years ago. Science calculates the age of the universe to be between 10 billion and 20 billions years. (Many stars exist which are so far away that it has taken far longer than 6000 years for their light to reach us.)

B) The Bible says everything was created in 6 days. Science says that things have been continuously created (and destroyed) for billions of years.

C) The Bible says that things were created in their present form and have not significantly changed since their creation. Science says that both living and non-living things have evolved, changing their forms many times over the eons, and often spinning off whole new forms.

D) The Bible says that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Since a day is defined as the time between sunrises (or between sunrise and sunset), there is no logical basis on which to distinguish the first three days. Similarly, there is no basis for saying that there was a morning and an evening on each of these first three days of creation as the Bible says there was.

E) The Bible says that the Earth was created before the sun. Science says that the sun came before the Earth.

F) The Bible says that vegetation was created on the third day and the sun on the fourth. Science says that the sun came into existence long before vegetation.

G) The Bible says that vegetation was created on the third day and that life arose in the sea on the fifth day. Science says that life existed in the sea long before it existed on land.

H) The Bible says that fish and birds were both created on the fifth day. Science says that fish appeared long before birds did.

I) The Bible says that creeping reptiles were formed on the sixth day - one day after the birds. Science says that birds appeared after such reptiles and most likely evolved from them.

J) Genesis 1:30 says that all animals were created as plant-eaters. Where then did the carnivores come from? (Note: Exodus 20:11 says that everything was created in the first six days.)

(To be continued....)






Site Meter




bookmark in case i come back. [ihate George W. Bush] 3/25/2004 4:46:23 PM
You might wish to consider Hume's argument: that a hypothesis that requires a miracle may only be believed in if the alternative hypothesis requires an even greater one. [NotKieran] 8/6/2006 9:00:01 AM
About miracles, how would you respond to a redefinition of the Biblical miracles as such: A miracle is anything that appears to violate known natural laws. After all, why would God create an orderly universe which follows natural laws only to violate those laws willy-nilly any time he felt like it? Many of the miracles related by the Bible (I think most commonly the plagues in Exodus) can also be understood from a logical, physical viewpoint. Yet this does not diminish the possibility they were still caused by God. The Biblical God works within the natural laws which he established, in ways science has not yet discovered. This doesn't mean at all that it is beyond science. Most of what we take for granted today (even my ability to send you this note) would've been called a miracle even a hundred years ago. [Ometeotl] 4/24/2007 12:18:36 AM
2: A&B) Easily reconciled when one sees that the first six "days" of the Bible, which are literal 24-hour days, were never meant to be understood from the Earth's perspective. Taking relativity into account, the first 24-hour day from a universal perspective would've taken about eight billion years for someone on some early planet. The relative time shortened with each progressive day, which we can see from the cosmic background radiation, such that from that universal perspective, right now is early on the seventh day. But if you adjust the scale on your timeline according to relativity, the commonly accepted theories about the development of the galaxy, the solar system, life, etc., match up pretty closely with the account in Genesis. For example, life is first created on the third day, which would've lasted from 12-14 billion years after the big bang, or about 2-4 billion years ago, the same time when science tells us life appeared on Earth. [Ometeotl] 4/24/2007 12:30:59 AM
C) The Bible says nothing of the sort. In fact, it's use of the verb "created" is rather sparse. The things we see today were "formed" or "made" into their present forms-- which God presumably accomplished through the agent of evolution.

D) Now this is stretching it. By the same argument, science says that the solar system didn't develop until about five billion years ago. Since a year is defined as the it takes the earth to orbit the sun, there is no logical basis on which to distinguish any of the years prior to five billion years ago. Genesis 1:14 says the sun and moon are to "mark" the days and years, not define time itself.

E) I'll admit I'm less sure about this one. But following the timeline mentioned in my answer to A & B, the sun, moon and stars weren't created on the fourth day, but rather were made visible from earth. As the plant life created on the third day released oxygen into the air, our planet's atmosphere became truly transparent, allowing the heavens to be seen (if anyone had been around to see them). [Ometeotl]

4/24/2007 12:41:29 AM
F) Same answer as I gave to E... I guess I hit submit before realizing it would also apply to F.

G) Science actually doesn't know where life first started. Given the conditions on primordial Earth, we can assume that if we could see the first life today, it'd be labelled an extremophile. Whether that means it was in the hot ocean floor vents or deep underground somewhere, or somewhere in between, science hasn't yet figured out. Granted, that doesn't completely answer the issue though.

G, H & I) You'll forgive me if I don't have it right in front of me, I'll try to look it up later. But as I recall, there are some translation issues here, with just what the Hebrew meant by the words we read translated as vegetation and birds. Although, notably, the dinosaur-bird connection seems to extend for much of dinosaur's time on the planet, and the "flying creatures" created on the fifth day could well apply to anything that flew, not necessarily related to modern birds at all. [Ometeotl]

4/24/2007 12:54:14 AM
J) While I don't know for sure, I would question the extent of this verse. Just as the Flood later in Genesis is usually misunderstood to refer to the entire planet, this verse may have applied specifically to the Garden of Eden. But then again, I don't know. [Ometeotl] 4/24/2007 12:56:54 AM
return to top
site map  -  advertise with us  -  privacy policy  -  dedicated hosting by VIA USA  -  contact us
Site design and software © 1998-2011 Open Diary. All rights reserved. OD release 6.0