Why is 'Science' supposed to prove or disprove the validity of the Bible?

Question

I have a BSc (Hons) in Biological sciences. I can think of no discipline I have studied or worked with (biochemistry, microbiology, molecular, genetics, evolution, et al) which would set itself up to 'disprove or prove' the validity of either God or the bible. I do not believe the bible 'word for word' but I believe it message by message. I do not believe that science can offer a resolution to anything which relies upon faith. So much of our science is also a faith thing. One thing which I keep coming back to is the sheer staggering improbability of either RNA or DNA actually forming in the first place: the odds against this make astronomical numbers look small! It is difficult not to believe in God when you really have a hard look at this kind of thing.

I also think that evolution almost certainly describes the route we have taken to get to this point in time. What I do not understand is why so many find it difficult to accept this as a route that God may have chosen.

I know a good man, a minister of religion, who does not, cannot, believe in dinosaurs. His reasoning is that God would not have created a whole species which would have to be exterminated to allow us to live on this planet. I think he is getting bent out of shape in trying to keep his idea of what Gods ideas are going. I see this in science too. People, defending positions which have really become untenable. God is many different things, to very many different people, and one of those things is scientist. There is no dichotomy between science and God. Indeed, how could it be otherwise?

Answer 1

There's no reason that science must destroy religion. The same is vice-versa.

I agree with you on the DNA thing.

Answer 2

Hmm... Perhaps you are a fellow reader of Crick's "Panspermgea Hypothesis?" It's interesting reading. Anyhow, I think there are those scientists that are atheists by faith and insist that the logic required to practice science negates the Bible *if you read the Bible literally.* You have, of course, taken the only logical course in order to maintain your faith in the face of logic imposed on a Bible full of contradictions: take a non-literal view of the Bible. This also makes sense when you read the few verses that talk about metaphor and meaning in the Bible, however, atheists will see this as a cop out. They too have a point, but you have already been impacted by it.

What I find more fascinating than attempts to disprove the validity of the Bible by pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies is that some atheist scientists insist that they can also prove or disprove that God exists! If that were so, why isn't this internationally accepted? It should be so plain and undebatably logical as to be undeniable, and yet...

As for me, the rightful religion of science, until such irrefutable evidence is found, is agnosticism. Science should always move on the premise that it does not know, which it why it bothers to experiment.

Answer 3

You have, of course, hit the nail on the head. The why of it.
Without something causing something to happen, why would it happen? Science can not and will not ever prove just what caused it all to happen. Of course God or, if you will, a supreme being or power had to cause something to happen.

Some, in the science field, do wish to disprove that there is or was a God that caused things to happen. But there had to be a starting place. If one believes that a "big bang" occurred just what kind of life would have been able to survive that? And, even if, one believes that a "big bang" occurred, then what life was there to begin with? And just where did it come from?

As you state the odds are impossible to even figure as to life simply happening. And, again, what would be the why question there? And, your thoughts on the Bible are the same as mine. Surely no person can state without a doubt that things just happened. Or some chemicals and minerals just formed into the first living thing. And even if one believed that had happened, why wouldn't it still be going on?

Answer 4

As a fellow scientist your opinion surprises me.

The probability of DNA or RNA forming is indeed astronomically improbable, why does this make the existence of God a probable alternative? Surely the odds of there being a God (if calculable) are far bigger?? DNA forming in a primeval soup was a freak occurrence, it only needed to happen for 1 second in a trillion for the endless bandwagon of evolution to take over.

As for science disproving the validity of the bible. Genesis states that God created the world in seven days. Based on the genealogy in the Old Testament historians have been able to date the story of Genesis to 14,000 years ago. Geologists will tell you that the earth was formed 6.4 billion years ago out of a swirling mass of space debris left over from the formation of the sun. There is a major conflict here.

The Bible speaks of a great flood, despite many claims by desperate Creationists there is no evidence in the Geological record to support it.

Biologists such as yourself know that that theory of evolution is extremely credible and far more likely than a Godly creator. The evidence of transitional fossils supports this. When I look around the natural world I find little space for a creator. There is not one organism existing on planet earth that shows evidence of creation. Try to think of one.

I hope this helps. You may not agree with my points but I urge you to consider this. In future decades and centuries current scientific theory may be proved wrong but it is foolish to think that God is the only alternative.

Answer 5

Science isn't supposed to prove or disprove the Bible, but it is reasonable for a number of inconsistencies and scientific inaccuracies to be pointed out. As you say, the Bible is not intended to be believed 'word for word' (do I demand an eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek?), but the overall message is the key thing.

We have no way of knowing how improbable the formation of DNA is - it could be an inevitable consequence of the chemistry of Earth like planets, or it could be a squillion to one chance. But we don't know how many planets are out there, or indeed how many universal cycles might have passed with or without DNA developing. You might find the concept of a creator plausible, but I'm not sure we have enough information to make a valid judgement about how unlikely life seems.

Answer 6

I'm a Human Biology degree student and I totally agree with you... Scientific proof or evidence/facts are only "right" until another scientists either now or in the future disproves the earlier evidence. The main thing I try to remember is that the Bible is about why whereas science is more about how, the Bible is not a scientific book and I spent far too many of my teenage years trying to argue scientifically using the Bible as a basis (creation/evolution etc)

Answer 7

Oh no, I actually have a strict coverage of bashing all religions the two (in basic terms kidding). extremely, it is not a count number of disproving Christianity. it incredibly is an argument of acknowledging that there in basic terms isn't lots info of most of the failings wherein Christians have "faith." the load of info is on Christians, no longer us. Now, do i've got confidence that this stone that Muslims worship become as quickly as white? No. If it is been scientifically prevalent as a meteorite, then it may no longer have been white in the previous. I element you're able to get the impact that atheists etc. do no longer tend to project Islam by using fact in usa, there are in basic terms maximum of extra Christians than there are Muslims, and hence maximum of extra Christian ideals floating around that technological awareness has the potential to disprove. If this u . s . a . become predominantly Islamic, you're able to finally end up asking why atheists do no longer difficulty to harp approximately Christian ideals.

Answer 8

Science is something completely different from the Bible. It's not trying to prove or disprove the Bible. If something is discovered that fits with the Bible, or doesn't fit, scientists aren't going to change it. It's just about finding out how things work. Not about whether it's due to God or not.

Answer 9

I believe that common sense disproves the validity of the Bible. Science works for things much greater than book criticism.

Answer 10

Well to put it simply,proven science backs up what the bible teaches. For eg.
The bible says in Genisis that GOD created the means for man to live on earth in 7 days.( NOT 24 HR DAYS BUT CREATIVE DAYS THAT WERE THOUSANDS OF YEARS LONG).
The sequence of the days as they occured could only happen that way, to sustain life, leading up to mans creation on the last day.
At Job 26v7 it says that "He (GOD) IS HANGING THE EARTH UPON NOTHING". Now how would he know of that around 1500 BC, if GOD himself had not told him? Scientist up to the middle ages believed that the earth was supported by a giant turtle,or that the earth was square and that you would fall over its edge. Isaiah 40v22,tells us ot the 'circle' of the earth. and Isaiah 40v26
TELLS OF HOW GOD ACCOMPLISHED THIS, AND DOES THIS NOT TIE IN WELL WITH EINSTEINS THEORY OF E=MCsq.
As a scientist i am sure you will appreciate these answers,as they are not mine, i let the BIBLE explain itself. Yes
Proven science backs up what the BIBLE stated thousands of years ago

Answer 11

I agree

My problem is we are taught and our kids are taught evolution to be fact.

The big Bang theory violates the laws of Thermodynamics.
Evolution and how we evolved has many holes.
Carbon dating has been proved to be inconsistent.

However ask any child in public school, even Christian kids and they believe we were once ape like creatures walking out of caves with long hair and scratching our heads b/c we were too stupid (sorry not evolved enough) to not hit our heads walking out of said cave.

What happened to the dinosaurs?
What happened to the Mayan civilization?
Look at the Egyptians and their knowledge years ahead of the rest.
How in 100 yrs have we moved so quickly technologically yet it took millions to stop smacking our heads on that dag on cave?

God Bless