The Bible and Science

Pay careful attention to the difference between empirical (testable) science and engineering, and philosophical, conceptual, or theoretical claims.

What is empirical science?

True science is the pursuit of understanding our world, but when it comes to claiming something is a scientific fact, certain procedures are required, called the scientific method:

• Abduction:
  1. Observe a natural (not artificial) phenomenon
  2. Form a hypothesis about what could cause it
• Deduction:
  • Experiment to test the hypothesis
    • Define the independent variable (IV, the cause, which you must be able to manipulate or control)
    • Define the dependent variable (DV, the effect)
    • Define the control variable (CV, the constant or conditions)
  • Experiment to test the null hypothesis (attempt to falsify)
  • Analyze the results
  • Repeat
• Induction: only deals in probabilities

By way of example, suppose we observe that plants grow at different rates in different environments. We then ask the question, "How does the amount of sunlight affect the growth of plants?" Now we form a hypothesis: Plants will grow faster in environments with more sunlight.

Next we devise an experiment to test the hypothesis: Four identical plants are placed in different environments (the CV) with varying amounts of sunlight (the IV). The plants are watered and cared for equally. After four weeks, the height of each plant (the DV) is measured.

The results are then analyzed to determine if there is a correlation between the amount of sunlight and the growth of the plants. If there is more growth in plants with more sunlight, the hypothesis is supported; if not, then it is null (falsified), and the hypothesis must be abandoned.

If something is not a naturally-occurring phenomenon and cannot be tested via the scientific method, then no theory about it can be called scientific. For example, if gravity is a cause of some motion, then you must control gravity to prove your theory. Observation is not explanation or experimentation.

What is pseudoscience?

A past event, such as the Big Bang or abiogenesis, cannot meet the standard required to call itself a scientific theory, much less a fact. Such theories are mere philosophical assumptions and guesses. Investigating the past is in the realm of probability and is highly subjective. But even in the present, science promoters brag about the instability of “science”, since today’s “scientific fact” may be tomorrow’s laughable ignorance. Pseudoscience is the only thing that really evolves, since data is interpreted according to what is currently believed to be true according to the philosophical bias of the interpreters. Yet since it's always changing, its defenders shouldn't get upset when people disagree with current theory. Their zealous outrage against disagreement proves its religious nature.

The standard of truth or fact

If we accept that the Bible is inspired by God, then it must follow that the Bible is not false and does not teach (rather than merely report) inaccuracies. So let's take a look at various passages that speak of the nature of our realm, such as in Genesis 1, Job 38 & 40, and Joshua 10:12-14.

Context is everything, and these contexts, while sometimes poetically expressed, never paint a picture of the universe that matches evolutionary theory or modern cosmology. Consider these questions:

• Should Gen. 1 bow to any theory that doesn't even meet the requirement of being called scientific?
• If the Bible wanted to present the six days of creation as literal 24-hour days, how much more clearly would it need to have been expressed than “evening and morning, the __th day”?
• Since the order of creation in Gen. 1 doesn’t match evolutionary theory, which one should we dismiss?
• Since the earth couldn’t have been orbiting the sun in the days before the sun was created, where does it say God put earth in any sort of motion, to account for the passing of days and possibly seasons?
• In Joshua 10:12-13 where the sun and moon didn’t move for “a full day”, did the earth stop spinning or did the sun and moon stop moving? What effects should have been reported in at least some parts of the world if it was the earth that stopped spinning? Likewise for 2 Kings 20:8-11, when God briefly reversed the path of the sun rather than the earth.
• Even in the most poetic passages earth is never described as a spinning ball, or that it moves through a place we call “outer space”. 1 Chron. 16:30 says earth is not moved; Job 26:7 says the northern skies were spread over emptiness, and that earth is not suspended; Job 37:18 says the skies were spread out “hard as mirror of cast bronze”; Psalm 93:1 & 104:5 say the world is firm and secure, never moved from its foundations; Isaiah 40:22 mentions the circle (not ball, as in Isaiah 22:18) of the earth, and God stretched the heavens like a canopy over a tent; Ecclesiastes 1:5 says the sun rises & sets, then hurries back to rise.
• The Bible only describes the luminaries as the sun, moon, and stars, with some stars “wandering” (the meaning of planet). On what Biblical basis do we believe that “planets” are not stars, or that earth is a planet?

Conclusion

Should the Bible bow to an unstable patchwork of guesses and philosophy? Do we trust God or people? The Bible has passed every test of its claims about history, so why do we not trust its claims about nature, which God created? Instead, we try to force-fit scripture into the latest philosophical framework, or cherry-pick which parts should be interpreted as allegory, “phenomenological language”, or “theological messaging”.

Who is really our God? Who is the the most trustworthy source of truth and fact? Is “science” in authority over the Bible? Scripture must be read in context, so if the context is historical narrative rather than poetry, moral lessons, or wisdom literature, we must take it as factual. And if current claims of scientific fact don't match, we can only hope that someday those claims catch up to reality.