Why does the Bible say science is "falsely so-called"?

Question

Isn't science a process of experimentation, and observation, in
order to come to logical conclusions? And can't science be nothing more than a belief, in that one will not accept his own test results, if they don't go along with his preconceived way of thinking?
Here is my case against scientists.
In California, there is a crack in the Earth called the San Andreas
fault. Where scientists expect a major quake to occur any day,
!00 miles away, in Nevada. "Scientists" exploded multi-kiliton
nuclear devices for decades.
I rest my case.

Answer 1

Science is mentioned twice in the Bible. Once in the Old Testament, and once in the New Testament... once for good and once for bad.

"Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans."

Daniel 1:4

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith."

I Timothy 6:20-21

Answer 2

Firstly, I'm not sure the bible says anything about science at all. The bible, if you include the New Testament, was finished more than 1,800 years ago. The concept of "science" as we understand it today, is less than 300 years old.

A key principle in science is observation. You report what you see. Now scientists, just like any other humans, have prejudices. On occasion, this means they will report what they want to see. Good science has a system of peer review and replication, where others will try to replicate your results. This will tend to filter out the false results and downright fraud fairly quickly (do a google on "Cold fusion")

I fail to see anything in your "case against scientists" at all. What are you saying? That the San Andreas fault does not exist? There will not be an earthquake? The nuclear blasts should have triggered one? I think you need to be a little clearer.

Just one point though. A nuclear device may appear to be very powerful, but it has absolutely no comparison to the forces existing within the planet. A medium size hurricane probably has more energy than all the bombs ever exploded.

THIS IS A LATER COMMENT.
My mistake. The Timothy entry in some bibles is translated as "science" (KJV) and in others "knowledge". The passage is an exhortation to ignore falsehood, which is a very scientific way of progressing, actually.

The problem here is what do you believe? Is the bible an absolute truth passed down from God? Is it a view of God written by man? Do you accept what you are told, or do you explore and come to your own understanding?

This is at the heart of the current debate regarding religion and science. Faith or proof? Personally, I go for proof.

Answer 3

What case are you resting? You are not producing any clear scientific thinking here. A nuclear bomb in Nevada will have no effect on the San Andreas fault. Just study the energy and distances involved.

There is no preconceived thinking in science, that is how we have progressed.

Answer 4

Science is basically a way of making sure that the search for knowledge is not impeded by human error. We're quite prone to look favorably on our own research, as you correctly point out.

That's why scientists publish their results for peer review; and not just the results, mind you, the data and the method as well. Any seismologist would have to demonstrate that nuclear testing isn't interfering with their measurements. I think that's quite easy to do, so you might want to look into that a bit before resting your case...

Answer 5

well i comend laurie for her answer to whether science is in the bible and she is right on that and the bible does not put down science as for nuclear detination an san andreas fault here is how to explain it then you can rest your case hold a fire cracker in your open hand you might get burned a little but close your fist around it and it will blow your hand off well same goes for nuclear exslosions those test were mostly above grond just burned the surface is all they were a few under ground but unless they were strategicly placed they would have no effect on the fault line so far away

Answer 6

per chance he's pointing out the absurdity of checking out even as a fult line might want to produce "the great One" via creating use of Nuclear wea[ons? only a guess... --------------------------------------... even if no tries have not began been made to regulate earthquakes, earthquakes were prevalent to be caused via human interplay with the Earth. this signifies that interior the destiny earthquake administration might want to be conceivable. Examples of human caused earthquakes * For ten years after structure of the Hoover Dam in Nevada blockading the Colorado River to furnish Lake Mead, over six hundred earthquakes occurred, one with value of 5 and a pair of with magnitudes of four. * interior the previous due Nineteen Sixties poisonous waste injected into unsafe waste disposal wells at Rocky residences, close to Denver apparently led to earthquakes to take position in a before earthquake quiet section. The focal depths of the quakes ranged between 4 and eight km, only below the three.8 km-deep wells. * Nuclear checking out in Nevada set off off thousands of aftershocks after the explosion of a 6.3 value equivalent underground nuclear attempt. the most important aftershocks were about value 5. --------------------------------------... n January 19, 1968, a thermonuclear attempt, code-named perfect, befell in major Nevada. The code-call grew to develop into out to be a nasty decision because a sparkling fault rupture some 4,000 ft lengthy became produced. Seismograph documents confirmed that the seismic waves produced via the fault flow were a lot less energetic than those produced right away via the nuclear explosion. regionally, there have been some minor earthquakes surrounding the blasts that released small quantities of ability. Scientists appeared on the speed of earthquake incidence in northern California, not faraway from the attempt web site, on the circumstances of the checks and placed not something to connect the checking out with earthquakes interior the section.

Answer 7

Bible and science in the same sentence.

Nuclear detonations are not in bible. It should be a hoax. Why do you believe in that? for other readers Nuclear detonations have nothing to do with earth quake.

Answer 8

The word science does appear in the bible

Answer 9

Ditto dont recal "science" being mentioned in the Bible. If someone told you they dont believe something scientific because it's not mentioned in the Bible, that's one thing, but to disbelieve in all science because the Bible "says it's false", they're not reading any Bible I've ever heard of.

Answer 10

Hmm looks like you neither know about the bible or geology to come up with that one. IF you knew about geology you wouldnt be asking such silly ignorant questions