How well would the Bible stand up to scientific rigor and/or the peer-review process?

Question

Personally I don't have a problem with the 'theory' of creationism being taught in the schools as long as the Bible could be dissected scientifically. In the end, I think the Bible would be exposed as a pack of lies - which would be a good thing.

Answer 1

Check out www.skepticsannotatedbible.com.

Answer 2

There is no "theory" of creationism. A theory is a set of principles and explanations that consolidate and organize the underlying facts. A theory is not less than facts. A theory is more than facts. The theory of evolution explains how evolution works. For example that offspring are very much like their parents but are not identical, and that only those individuals that survive long enough to reproduce pass on their traits. And that those characteristics that make survival and reproduction more likely will become more prominent in the population than those that do not. And then of course are the actual mechanisms (DNA, etc.).

The "theory of creationism" doesn't explain anything. It just says "don't worry your pretty little head about how all these species came into existence or how complex living creatures got to be the way they are, just say God did it and go back to whatever you were doing". It's just intellectual laziness. It not only does not explain anything, it doesn't even try to.

And as for the answers about the Bible standing the test of time, that's bunk. The people (and there were lots of them over a long period of time) got almost everything wrong. You might notice that churches tend to teach only about 1 per cent of 1 per cent of what's in the Bible because most of it is obviously just poorly thought out explanations formulated in the ignorance of earlier times.

Answer 3

Scientific Accuracies in the Bible

1. The spherical shape of the earth (Isaiah 40:22).
2. The earth is suspended in nothing (Job. 26:7).
3. The stars are innumerable (Gen. 15:5).
4. The existence of valleys in the seas (2 Sam. 22:16).
5. The existence of springs and fountains in the sea (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Prov. 8:28).
6. The existence of water paths (ocean currents) in the seas (Psalm 8:8).
7. The water cycle (Job. 26:8; 36:27-28; 37:16; 38:25-27; Ps. 135:7; Ecc. 1:6-7).
8. The fact that all living things reproduce after their own kind (Gen. 1:21; 6:19).
9. The nature of health, sanitation, and sickness (Gen. 17:9-14; Lev. 12-14).
10. The concept of entropy, that energy is running down (Psalm 102:26).

Why not put the evolution fallacy to the same rigorous tests? Because it would fail miserably. The Bible has been dissected since it was written and it is still standing, as a beacon of truth.

Answer 4

A pack of lies? Very Highly Unlikely! A book of Truths? Yeah, that's what I'm talking about!

Science is a wonderful thing. It has saved many a person over the ages, given us light, flight, warmth, shelter, the ability to travel worldwide, to speak with folk in other nations NOW! And the list goes on.

But science, as great as it is, cannot prove OR disprove the existance of our Creator. God wants us to believe on faith! This is the test we will be judged by, IMHO.

I cannot believe that the universe just created itself. I cannot believe that the Earth, teaming with life just happened, while there is no known (other) life in the universe.

How can one believe otherwise, even with the benifits of science?

So, while the Bible would not stand up well under scientific rigor, it (in my mind) does lead mankind in a proper direction and must, thus be right!

The Ol' Sasquatch Ü

Answer 5

M- The Bible has been dissected, analyzed cussed and discussed for well over a century. Check out Creation in the 21st Century's website. They are discovering more and more that creation is the only solution. Don't hate. That's the theme of the entire Bible- even the OT is a love letter -there's always gonna be drama. Good vs evil. Personally, I choose good. I chose God. THAT is a good thing. God bless.

Answer 6

It's a pack of historical stories and allegories meant to demonstrate god's love for the world. It's not meant to be analyzed scientifically, any more than the books Lord of the Rings are, for example.

Here's a question... WHAT IF, there really is a god who created the world, and that the vehicle by which he chose to operate was evolution? This would mean that certain religious icons got it wrong in interpreting the bible to say the earth is only 6000 years old, but... I'm OK with calling them out on that.

NOTE: I didn't say that I believed this personally. I merely asked a rhetorical "what if" question

Answer 7

2 Timothy 3:16 informs us that "All scripture is inspired of God." 2 Peter 1:21 cements that view when it says, "For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit." So these scriptures show that, although God had men write down his thoughts, he is still the author. Psalms 83:18 unambiguously states: "That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth." That being the case, how would it be possible for peers of God himself to review his inspired word, given that there is no one in the heavens or on earth who is his peer? There are, of course, reviews of Bible translations that are conducted by the peers of the translators, that is, those who are educated in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek in which the original Bible texts were written. But they can only scrutinize the quality of those translations according to their own view of whether they are accurate in intent and meaning etcetera of the original texts. They cannot "peer review" someone who no one can peer review.

Answer 8

The Bible is a historical, moral and philosophical document, and does not try to explain scientific theories. Some people claim that it does, but they aren't in the majority.

As such, a peer review process for the Bible wouldn't be conducted by scientists, but by philosophers, theologians and philosophers. Among such as these, it would hold up quite well.

Creation shouldn't be taught in schools as it is not a valid scientific theory.

Answer 9

If you're truly interested in this, read the book "The Signature of God" by Grant Jeffrey which will show you scientific proof, mathematical codes in the bible and other astonishing things that only God could have put there. Peace :-)

2000 years and still a #1 best seller.

Answer 10

From a purely sceintific view, it couldn't be proved or disproved. However, every piece of historical data in it, espcecially dating back to the beggining of the Bible's chronology has checked out as accurate, even when at first most history had disagreed with it. Of course, nobody can prove that the miracles happened but every battle and ruler and kingdom existed and the Bible has proved to be the most accurate historical refference in existance.

However, yes, I do believe it could. Maybe not today's science because it has way too many of its own faults, but I believe it could.

I don't care as much that Intelligent Design is taught as much as I despise the fact that evolution is taught as scientific law with none of its faults exposed. Darwin himself spent more than half of his book, The ORigin of the Species, discussing the faults with his own theory.

Answer 11

On more than one occasion, the Bible was scrutinized by Atheist, trying to use either scientific facts, or using the evidences of law to disprove the facts of the Bible. The result, most of those Atheist, after careful examination of the facts, became Christians.