science vs. the bible?

Question

each is presented in text as someone's first hand account of what they've observed. science is presented to us as scientists observations. the life of jesus is presented to us as people's observations. either way, we never actually see it directly ourselves. so then, how do we KNOW that science is telling us the truth? we learn about it through what people tell us. does anyone see what i'm saying? i'm not arguing that religion is above science, or vice versa, i am merely stating that they are both just what we are told by other people.

i did go to school, kthanks. i am currently working on my master's degree.

all i am saying is that we only go off of what the science text books tell us. we rarely ever see it first hand. i am not at all saying it is incorrect/wrong.

i understand that the experiments are replicable...but how many average people can go out and use the equipment required to do so. for example, dating fossils and archaeological finds is time consuming, expensive and requires special equipment. only very few people can go out and do this...therefore, WE GO OFF OF WHAT WE ARE TOLD!

Answer 1

The Bible does not consist of first hand accounts. The life of Jesus is presented to us by people who lived quite a while after he died, and who made up many details based on the assumption that Jesus' life fulfilled certain prophecies.

Answer 2

But here's the difference - in science, the observations that have been made have already been interpreted by experts and reviewed by other experts so that what is presented to us has some real authority behind it. This of course is also how the Bible was intended to be presented. Jesus told the Church "whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven", so that when the Church formally interpreted a text that interpretation had some real authority behind it. But in the 16th Century all hell broke loose when someone formed an unauthorized group who rejected the God-given authority of the Church and were going to try to self-interpret the Bible. Some even claimed that the Bible "interprets itself", an obviously absurd claim. Since then, that initial little Protestant group has fragmented into thousands of groups, each claiming to know the truth from the Bible, and each conflicting with and contradicting the biblical interpretations of the others - quite different from the universally accepted facts of science. If scientists just made their observations, then gave them to the general public so that each individual person could self-interpret them, science would be as chaotic as Protestantism is. Because we are not all scientists and cannot all interpret scientific data appropriately. We are also not theologians. Some such self-interpretations are so far off the mark that they even contradict known and proven scientific facts. The reality is, there is no conflict between science properly interpreted and the Bible properly interpreted. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

Answer 3

We would know that science is telling the truth because we could conduct experiments to verify that what was being said was correct. This is a fundamental principle of science. If an experiment's results can not be repeated, then the result has probably been misinterpreted, or an unethical scientist is lying (remember Korea and the stem cell claims?). There is no way to verify the Bible by an independent experiment, so we would have to take it on "faith" that it was true, as millions do.

Answer 4

I have never understood how we ever got to a "science vs the Bible" situation in the first place.
The Bible is not a science text book, and nobody has ever claimed that it was. Well, not until quite recently, anyhow. Why anyone would think that God would disclose His methods of creation is beyond me. Even if He told us exactly how He created the universe, created life, created intelligence, etc...do you think we have even ONE scientist competent enough to duplicate His work? 'Tis to laugh!
The Bible is, however, an excellent source for history. In fact, archeologists use the Bible, because it is so accurate.
So, some folks are bent all out of shape over the "Evolution vs Creationism" controversy. I wouldn't get terribly excited about it, if I were you. Neither side can actually prove their claims. All of us ought to know that a "real" scientist would never make the outrageous claims that we hear in this forum. Science is dynamic, always changing with every new discovery. Yesterday's facts will be tomorrow's fallacy. And that's OK! By the same token, we ought to realize that a "real" Christian would never claim that he/she has found all the answers to questions of science in the Bible. God is immutable, true. But it is also true that, as we progress, we understand more and more of what it actually says.
Looked at from my perspective, the future ought to be pretty exciting, as we unlock more and more of God's mysteries.
But I garauntee one thing.
We will NEVER unlock them all.



God bless you!!

Answer 5

First to me it is not a question of science vs. bible, but rather where you put your basic belief/faith. There is no difference in the SCIENCE of evolution and creation except the conclusions that are arrived at from the data and observations. The issue to me is, are you going to put your faith into something like happenstance or into the belief that this all was created thought intelligence with purpose. One believing in happenstance for the creation of the universe and life makes no logical sense to me.

The root meaning of science is knowledge. In fact philosophy and theology were in the past considered science and theology was even called the “queen of science”. Over the last 200 years, during in the “Scientific Revolution” the word science has become to mean a method of knowing truth. The reality to me for science is what is believed to be the truth; as we are limited to our understanding, encounters and technology we have to consider what is the truth.

Science should always be taught in schools as beliefs rather than absolute facts otherwise it becomes indoctrination not science. When one chooses to close a door in science it is also closing the mind. Science should be focused on understanding the methods used, the assumptions made and could there be other conclusions. Even the basic laws of physics should be presented with our knowing that we have a very limited understanding of them and only know that they work within our limited abilities to prove them and our limited experiences.

From the point of science I believe that neither evolutionism nor creationism is science but rather hypothesis/theories to look at using scientific methods with our limited technology, which should always be questioned.

I believe that the theories that are raised by the belief in creation should not be ignored in science.

Everyone has watched as science "facts" change through time - even in our lifetime.

I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. If there is a conflict with so called science "facts" of the day, then perhaps we made the wrong scientific conclusions - because God is right.

Answer 6

This is not true.

Science is based of observations that you can repeat. SOme may need special eqipment, but many principles you could easily verify and measure for yourself.

Religion is based often on a single account, and on dogma.

Many contentious issues in science actually stem by logic from very simple observations, ironically ones that those who find the issues contentious would not challenge.

For instance, the age of the Earth is determined by isotope dating. This relies on the behaviour of radioactive materials. And so does nuclear energy and atom bombs. Now either nuclear reactors do not work, or the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. You cannot logically have both - they stem from the same observations.

Answer 7

The thing about science is that you can do the miracles if you want to, but I do understand what you mean. Not every one of us has a particle accelerator in our back yard.

The difference that science involves reality testing is still there and real though, most science does not really involve extremely expensive apparatus to test.
Science also provides tangible results, like the computer you are typing on.

Answer 8

Science seeks its truth through observation, experimentation, debate and theory. Religion seeks its truth through interpretation of a thousands year old text written by relatively primitive people. If things don't seem to jibe under the religious "truth" well that 's just the fault of the observer, I suppose. Do yourself a favor and look up "scientology" on the wikipedia websight. Well it's there right? So that makes scientology one possible alternative to the "truth," and L. Ron Hubbard kind of a "truth messiah," right?

Answer 9

Scientists have to repeat their tests numerous times or show something through numbers to be proven true. Also they have many peers that question what is presented until it is proven in some way. The Bible is a collection of historical writings, that doesn't mean it isn't true but it certainly cannot be compared to science.

Answer 10

Men of Faith and Men of Science experience conflict in furious and fruitless dialogue,neither bending an inch....The truth is, that Faith and Science are not in conflict....the gaps that prevent a solid connection between the two are bound in the ignorance of man.
...."We now see through a glass darkly,but then.. face to face"

I copied my own answer from a similar question the other day on faith vs science.

Answer 11

Scientific experiments are replicable if they are true, unless you believe it's all some great conspiracy.

The Gospels were all written well after Jesus died (over a centruy in some cases) and they rarely agree with each other. In some cases they even contradict each other.