Religion or Science?

Question

There is the whole Adam and Eve thing about how we were created in the bible (the religious aspect) and there is the whole evolution thing (the scientific aspect). It also includes the dinosaurs. The bible says nothing about these things. The two contradict each other. There is proven science to the dinosaurs. There is nothing to prove the bible. It is just something we are taught. I've recently started to question everything. I'm a very spiritual person, with a medical background (I'm a nurse). I'm confused as to what to believe. I want your opinions on all of this. Don't get me wrong, I believe in God and Jesus, but I'm wondering how it all fits together. I was not raised religious and do not know much about the bible, but what I do know, is that it does not agree with science. If everyone has a time to go, why do we have doctors that bring you back to life. Why is there medicine? Let me know what you all think.

Answer 1

You mention dinosaurs. Take a look at Job 40:15-24. Job was questioning God because of his suffering, and so God comes and challenges Job with His creation.

Many people say, “Job 40 can’t be speaking of a dinosaur.” They say that, not because the description doesn’t fit, but because of their preconceived conception that man and dinosaurs didn’t live together.

The margin of the NIV says, “Possibly the hippopotamus or the elephant.” Something to keep in mind—the footnotes are not a part of the original.

Well, the tail of an elephant or hippo is like a twig, not a cedar (most dogs have longer tails). Throughout the Scriptures, cedars were known for their great size and length. Nothing on earth today fits this description, but a sauropod type of dinosaur does.

The largest we have found was over 120 feet long. That sounds to me like the “chief”—not a hippo.

And then in Job 41, God describes the Leviathan (Isaiah 27:1 calls it the dragon in the sea). The margin of the NIV says, “Possibly the crocodile.” But the description again doesn’t fit any animal alive today. Besides, man has never had a problem catching crocodiles, even primitive tribes, but God says in Job 41 that Leviathan couldn’t be caught.

Some think this was just a mythical creature since it speaks of it breathing fire. And yes, Job is a poetic book and those could just be poetic descriptions. But not necessarily. Impossible you say?

What about the electric eel that can produce enough electricity to stun a horse? If the electric eel was extinct and all we could find were its fossils, would we be able to know that it could generate electricity? Nope. What about the firefly and anglerfish that can produce light? What about the bombardier beetle that can fire a boiling mixture of chemicals at its enemies that is 212 degrees Fahrenheit?

Why couldn’t God have created certain water-living reptiles that were capable of expelling hot gaseous fumes that could ignite? Most animals produce methane anyway, which is a flammable gas. Stories of fire-breathing dragons have circulated for thousands of years.

Also, keep in mind that Behemoth and Leviathan were included along with real creatures that Job knew about. Read Job sometime.

In Isaiah 30:6, Isaiah speaks of flying serpents. I also find it interesting that Herodotus, the Greek Historian who lived around 450 BC wrote about flying serpents in Arabia. He talked about finding their bones and described their snake-like bodies and bat-like wings. And the Jewish historian from the first century, Josephus, wrote about Moses and the Israelites having a difficult time passing through a particular region because of the presence of flying serpents. I think they were speaking of one of the pterosaurs like the pterodactyl, pteranodon, or rhamphorhynchus.

Answer 2

Not opinion but truth we should seek.
Evolution contradicts the Bible's account of creation.
Some try to put the two together (theistic evolution) but it just doesn't hold water.
If the Bible is wrong in one part, then it obviously cannot be trusted. But, we can trust it. Men have made mistakes in science and their theories before, and still do. Reading works from both believing and non-believing perspectives will help to clarify.
Just because something is not written about in the Bible (dinosaurs) doesn't mean it wasn't real. Many things are not spoken of in the Bible. It isn't a science book, but wherever it speaks about things of a science nature, it is never wrong.
The majority od scientists approach their "work" with the pre-conceived belief that God does not exist. Then, whatever they find or theorize will aim towards that end...to prove there is no God.

Answer 3

The thing you need to know first of all is that neither can be proven as fact. To be accepted as a scientific fact, it needs to be replicable, tested over and over and get the same result, this is not possible, so niether can be proven. Second, the Bible does mention dinosaurs in the book of Job which is believe to have taken place before the flood.

As for medicine, everyone will die. Doctors just can only heal someone temporarily. Everyone will die reguardless.

Science is science, not history.

Answer 4

The percentage of adults who believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word" is 5 times higher in the U.S. than in Britain and over 10 times higher compared to other developed First World Countries.

Basically, I am saying that in other Western countries where most are Christian, there is no conflict between the bible and science. The bible is viewed as a spiritual guide, not a science book.

A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the LITERAL existence of Adam and Eve.

They accept that the authors of Genesis lived in a pre-scientific era and simply adopted creation legends from their surrounding Pagan societies. It is not the literalism of the story but the SYMBOLISM of it that is important to the Christian doctrine.

Unless of course, you actually believe a snake talked, which as a smart, educated woman you KNOW is ridiculous.

Answer 5

Ignore 3, he's an idiot. You're a nurse, so you know evolution is real. You have a proper biology background.

Some Christians seem to manage to come to the conclusion that, though they believe god started it all, evolution is just how we got to this point in human development, and that maybe god isn't done yet so evolution is continuing.

However, there are far too many fundie's who won't even consider evolution because they have the education level of a fly and aren't willing to learn about it properly.

As for me... I think the idea of god is completely idiotic.

There is medicine because human beings need it to survive and they don't like the suffering of others.

Answer 6

First, science is not exactly exact or precise. Science depends wholly on a constant on which to apply its math and findings. Entropy has proven that nothing is constant, not even matter, light, energy or even entropy itself.
As for proof of God and the Bible, I would beg to differ..
http://schnebin.blogspot.com/2007/04/proof-of-god.html

As a believer in God and Jesus, as you profess, you need to understand that science has no hope for what occurs after life ceases. It has nothing on which to observe or test. Once a person dies, and is dead for a day or two--science, in all its knowledge, cannot bring them back for discovery for what lies beyond.

Jesus was dead for three days, and proved that He had the keys to death and the grave by raising Himself from the dead. He made clear what to expect in the afterlife. He provides free access to eternal life if you would just believe His report.

It seems as if science today is more concerned with discrediting the given evidence in order to hold on to its own lack of knowledge. And thus, those who hold to science for their religion, choose the dangerous road of "taking ones chances that the Bible is false" regarding the afterlife. A dangerous gamble indeed seeing eternity is in the balance.

Science is limited to the physical. Your soul is eternal. The Bible deals with what is eternal where science cannot venture. The physical realm will pass away, and science will pass away with it. What you want to do is latch onto that which will last forever, and that is the Word of God.

Science deals with understanding and comprehending creation. Religion deals with the understanding and comprehension of the Creator.

1 Peter 1:23-25
...having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, because

All flesh is as grass,
And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass.
The grass withers,
And its flower falls away,
But the word of the LORD endures forever.

"I do not know much about the bible, but what I do know, is that it does not agree with science."
In a way this is true, but in a way you are mistaken. The fact is that todays science does not agree with the Bible, not the other way around. Whatever science says, the Bible said before the first true scientist was ever born. Early scientists believed the Bible. Todays scientists are materialists, and predominately atheists. They find comfort in thier scientific knowledge, and lord it over those of faith.
Yet this same Bible said, hundreds of years before anyone else, that the world was a sphere and hung on "nothing". This same Bible proclaimed there were paths in the sea, as well as a water cycle. This same Bible proclaimed that the things that we see (matter) is made up of things that are NOT seen (atoms) and that the universe had a beginning, and will see an end (entropy). Scientists have now agreed that the law of thermodynamics means that the universe was once "wound up" and is currently "winding down". But you cannot have a self-winding clock. To this day, they do not know Who or what first wound up the universe as we know it. The Bible proclaimed the Who and how in Genesis 1:1. Again, before the first scientist was even born.

Answer 7

Adam and Eve is just a story in a book. It is contradictory and chock full of errors and inconsistencies.


Meanwhile science is consistent and repeatable. There is nothing that has ever been done by any scientist that you or I could not repeat (given the time and the resources)

Scientists are perfectly willing (generally) to alter their views in light of new evidence. Religion is based on dogma and doctrine and changes incredibly slowly, if at all. Often at the expense of human life and suffering.


I do not believe in either. But I do trust science because it has been shown to be very trustworthy. Religion has shown to be the opposite.

So, I see lots of reasons to trust science and none to trust the bible. It is really a no-brainer for anyone looking at it dispassionately.

The question for you is, given the unreliable nature of the bible, why stop at Adam and Eve? Why is it that God, Jesus and all his miracles are not myth too? Archeology, which has historically been run by Christians with preconceived ideas, is just starting to look at the NT texts dispassionately and are discovering more and more flaws in it.

Answer 8

Well, you have to decide something. Do you want to get your knowledge of the world from science, from religion, or from a combination of both. If you choose science, then evolution is your answer, as it is a well supported scientific theory. If you choose religion, then there is a nice story in the bible to follow. If you choose both, then you can make up the story you feel fits the best. For me, I personally choose science, since that is real.

Answer 9

I believe in both.

Evolution is not inconsistent with God. Evolution is only inconsistent with the Bible being a LITERAL book. Which, by the way, no one ever claimed historically that it was literal until the last couple of hundred years. Until then it was only ever seen as a socio-cultural anthropology book on the journey of faith of a certain people.

Aquinas the Theologian and Scientist saw no discrepancy in Science and Theology as one is Natural and the Other Supernatural.

"we can have a true knowledge of the world without
resorting to faith, because “the human mind can see the truth by natural light without anything being added. Thus nature can be studied apart from faith." ~ Aquinas

Answer 10

Think of both science and religion as equal entities under one Creator. Both tell a story of creation. Both inspire creativity. Unfortunately, both compete against the other for 'truthiness,' (Steven Cobert's word, I think. Maybe John Stewart).

Both attempt to explain a Truth. Both are tools used to describe a Truth. Therefore, neither are, in and of themselves, a truth.

I like to think of mathematics, for example, as a medium in art. Mathematics is like a paint-by-number kit used to artfully describe creation. While Mathematicians use numbers, poets use words. Singers use notes. You get the point.

As for medicine, if you want, think of it as an attempt to be an art restoration business. We are the canvases onto which God has created, and doctors and nurses (and engineers and others) are those that restore the art to it's intended product.

Don't adjust your thought paradigm to religion vs science. Find a paradigm that works for your own spiritual endeavor with the Creator. ...and please forgive those that have provided sarcastic feedback to this question. It is a valid and useful discussion.