Does believing the bible come with the requirement that people ignore and reject science?
Or does it depend on how literally one’s understanding of the bible is? You know, if one has a very literal understanding of the bible, then does one ignore and deny a lot of science and if one has only a slightly literal understanding of the bible, then one ignores and denies only a little science? But above all, if one has any belief at all in the bible being the word of a god, then one is denying science to some extent, right?
absolutely.
no contest
powered by Yahoo Answers
September 23 2009 08:35 pm | Bible
Muldah on 24 Sep 2009 at 2:04 am #
Science can address only the natural
Scripture addresses the supernatural
And never the twain shall meet
1Ti 6:20 ¶ O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen.
References :
IanCorrigable on 24 Sep 2009 at 2:15 am #
Not just science but knowledge. The Original Sin was eating from the Tree Of Knowledge. In other words, trying to learn things for yourself is BAAAAAAAAAAAD!!!
References :
Pants Party III on 24 Sep 2009 at 2:53 am #
Snakes can’t talk, people can’t come back from the dead, the Earth is round, there is no invisible sky daddy watching over anyone
References :
hunter on 24 Sep 2009 at 3:34 am #
absolutely.
no contest
References :
Reit on 24 Sep 2009 at 4:06 am #
well, i don’t know the bible back to back, but i’d estimate you’d have to do an extensive amount of liberal interpretations.
References :
REALLY BAD BADGER!! LOOKOUT!! on 24 Sep 2009 at 4:37 am #
Sure. Why do something half-@ssed. I couldn’t.
References :
sylvia c on 24 Sep 2009 at 4:46 am #
science is still subject to the laws of God. you cant get around that.
References :
Savage serenity on 24 Sep 2009 at 4:56 am #
I embrace both science and the Holy Bible, but I question both of them at my leisure.
References :
Christian.
Tiny on 24 Sep 2009 at 5:01 am #
The Bible is a joke… it was written by normal people not even phophets od God.. it certainly wasnt written by Jesus… so how can u beleive anything in the bible?
the reason it doesnt agree with science and is complete b/s is because of its origin… Humans!!!!!
Look into something like Islam if you want to find a religion that agrees with science…
References :
Booster on 24 Sep 2009 at 5:16 am #
Not reject science-but to to know the One who is created science-along with everything else.
References :
JZ on 24 Sep 2009 at 5:46 am #
NO.
We just think that evolution does not explain consciousness. Although its does explain a lot of things. But evolution also does not explain the beginning of the universe. Why even create the universe if evolution is to follow.
References :
JennyM on 24 Sep 2009 at 5:53 am #
No. In fact the Bible says : “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isa. 40:22)
So it says in the Bible that the earth was round LONG before man knew.
This article explains more:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm
References :
Ms. Lady on 24 Sep 2009 at 6:17 am #
no. my sister has her bachelors in biology and her masters in forensics.
she is a detective for the medical examiners office. she loves her job and she’s a christian
References :
Lives7 on 24 Sep 2009 at 7:03 am #
Gen. to Rev. – Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.
Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 – those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.
Matt. 28:20 – "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.
Rom. 10:17 – faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.
1 Cor. 15:1,11 – faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.
Gal. 1:11-12 – the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man’s Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
References :
Catholic and Lovin It
iRome on 24 Sep 2009 at 7:49 am #
OMG. The bible never changes its verses but science always changes its theories.
Not all things in science are true. To trust in something that always changes and can’t stay constant is foolish.
References :
Christian who loves science
rzch on 24 Sep 2009 at 8:07 am #
Here’s an interesting article about science and the Bible:
True Science Harmonizes With the Bible
The foregoing should in no way discourage an interest in science. To be sure, the Bible itself invites us to learn from God’s handiwork and to discern God’s amazing qualities in what we see. (Isaiah 40:26; Romans 1:20) Of course, the Bible does not claim to teach science. Rather, it reveals God’s standards, aspects of his personality that creation alone cannot teach, and his purpose for humans. (Psalm 19:7-11; 2 Timothy 3:16) Yet, when the Bible does refer to natural phenomena, it is consistently accurate. Galileo himself said: “Both the Holy Scriptures and nature proceed from the Divine Word . . . Two truths can never contradict one another.” Consider the following examples.
Even more fundamental than the movement of stars and planets is that all matter in the universe is governed by laws, such as the law of gravity. The earliest known non-Biblical reference to physical laws was made by Pythagoras, who believed that the universe could be explained by numbers. Two thousand years later, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton finally proved that matter is governed by rational laws.
The earliest Biblical reference to natural law is contained in the book of Job. About 1600 B.C.E., God asked Job: “Have you come to know the statutes [or, laws] of the heavens?” (Job 38:33) Recorded in the seventh century B.C.E., the book of Jeremiah refers to Jehovah as the Creator of “the statutes of the moon and the stars” and “the statutes of heaven and earth.” (Jeremiah 31:35; 33:25) In view of these statements, Bible commentator G. Rawlinson observed: “The general prevalence of law in the material world is quite as strongly asserted by the sacred writers as by modern science.”
If we use Pythagoras as a point of reference, the statement in Job was about a thousand years ahead of its time. Keep in mind that the Bible’s objective is not simply to reveal physical facts but primarily to impress upon us that Jehovah is the Creator of all things—the one who can create physical laws.—Job 38:4, 12; 42:1, 2.
Another example we can consider is that the earth’s waters undergo a cyclic motion called the water cycle, or the hydrologic cycle. Put simply, water evaporates from the sea, forms clouds, precipitates onto the land, and eventually returns to the sea. The oldest surviving non-Biblical references to this cycle are from the fourth century B.C.E. However, Biblical statements predate that by hundreds of years. For example, in the 11th century B.C.E., King Solomon of Israel wrote: “All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the rivers come, to there and from there they return again.”—Ecclesiastes 1:7, The Amplified Bible.
Likewise, about 800 B.C.E. the prophet Amos, a humble shepherd and farmworker, wrote that Jehovah is “the One calling for the waters of the sea, that he may pour them out upon the surface of the earth.” (Amos 5:8) Without using complex, technical language, both Solomon and Amos accurately described the water cycle, each from a slightly different perspective.
The Bible also speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing,” or he “suspends earth in the void,” according to The New English Bible. (Job 26:7) In view of the knowledge available in 1600 B.C.E., roughly when those words were spoken, it would have taken a remarkable man to assert that a solid object can remain suspended in space without any physical support. As previously mentioned, Aristotle himself rejected the concept of a void, and he lived over 1,200 years later!
Does it not strike you as amazing that the Bible makes such accurate statements—even in the face of the erroneous yet seemingly commonsense perceptions of the day? To thinking people, this is one more evidence of the Bible’s divine inspiration. We are wise, therefore, not to be easily swayed by any teaching or theory that contradicts God’s Word. As history has repeatedly shown, human philosophies, even those of towering intellects, come and go, whereas “the saying of Jehovah endures forever.”—1 Peter 1:25.
[Footnotes]
In the third century B.C.E., a Greek named Aristarchus of Samos put forth the hypothesis that the sun is at the center of the cosmos, but his ideas were dismissed in favor of Aristotle’s.
For an in-depth discussion on this topic, see chapter 15, “Why Do Many Accept Evolution?” in the book Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
[Box/Pictures on page 6]
The Protestants’ Attitude
Leaders of the Protestant Reformation also railed against the sun-centered concept. They included Martin Luther (1483-1546), Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560), and John Calvin (1509-64). Luther said of Copernicus: “This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy.”
The Reformers based their argument on a literal interpretation of certain scriptures, such as the account in Joshua chapter 10 that mentions that
References :
The Watchtower 4/1/05
Hank Rearden on 24 Sep 2009 at 8:56 am #
Can you explain what it was that made man sentient? Where that particular "adjustment" took place?
You can theorize, you can guess, you can model possibilities – but you cannot KNOW.
Until you can – I hold that God exists. And HE is what made man sentient.
Edit – iRome – I loved your answer – terrific!!
Having eliminated everything that is impossible – whatever is left, however improbable – must be true.
References :
Agape on 24 Sep 2009 at 9:14 am #
umm science isn’t all about evolution hun…God used some crazy scientifical operations just to create this universe…God=life…life isn’t defined by what some humans "hypothesize" it to be
References :
duh
Mythos on 24 Sep 2009 at 10:03 am #
If it does, I wonder why those who believe such are on the internet.
Apparently, I’ve been "black-balled" by some fellow believers because I’ve recently expressed a willingness to understand and accept evolution.
I’m certainly not surprised.
References :
Barrie on 24 Sep 2009 at 10:33 am #
if you take the bible not literally, then maybe you should try taking it not at all and make up your own rules on morality. i would always bet on science for true answers as it is unbiased. and remember, if science thought it knew everything, it would stop.
References :
Margaret L on 24 Sep 2009 at 10:54 am #
No.
The Bible is not meant to be a science textbook.
References :
Future US Army, 2013 on 24 Sep 2009 at 11:05 am #
it depends on your literal interpretation
References :
Mary & Pope on 24 Sep 2009 at 11:42 am #
God portrayed by Bible is not God.
They wrote it in such a way to misguide the people.
Why do you believe that crap?
References :
Mel on 24 Sep 2009 at 12:11 pm #
Somethings in science I can believe, like the medical science, But when it comes to the world and it’s creation, how old it is, when did the israelites do this and that, I do not believe it. No way!!! Science says that this world is billions of years old, but that’s not what the bible teach. I try to be very careful what I read.
References :
~Dope throne~ on 24 Sep 2009 at 12:30 pm #
I think there are verses that would seem to condemn knowledge and learning in general. I can’t think of any off hand though.
It seems to me people only have a problem with the science that contradicts their bibles. Everything else is just fine, which is a bit hypocritical. Why does the scientific method work in medicine and technology, but not when applied to biology, paleontology, geology, etc.?
References :
Pastor Art (((SFECU))) on 24 Sep 2009 at 1:02 pm #
Bible believing Christians invented Science.
Name a law of Physics you learned in college, most of them were named after Bible believing Christians who discovered those laws.
Whenever true science has appeared to disagree with a correct view of the Bible, given more time, Science eventually caught up with the truth in the Bible.
References :
43+ years following a Jewish Carpenter & studying His Book!
Jj M on 24 Sep 2009 at 1:10 pm #
hahaha ….YES obviously. Science is about reason and logic. how are you supposed to believe that the earth was crafted in seven days and have reason and logic?
References :
Jerry on 24 Sep 2009 at 1:28 pm #
No science is including by means of taking care of yourself …if a Christan went into science then things would get done right instead of these dawkins guys lol…cough
References :
StandW2Fists on 24 Sep 2009 at 2:16 pm #
Not at all. There are clues to science in scripture …
Example: Earth is both flat and a sphere.
Our earth is circular in form and perpetual motion . Flat being immovable … constant within it’s orbit (with only slight variances) and only capable of expansion and collapse to a certain degree both in the physical and dimensional planes.
References :
Lifeline on 24 Sep 2009 at 2:34 pm #
believe God with all your soul, mind and body; science cannot be set to the side, it there and yes it has benefits sadly, some will try to be like God–create life of sort; scientist have all ready created this living organism, they have no idea what it will do so they have it contained till are sure they can control it at this point life will never be the same.
References :
Daniel on 24 Sep 2009 at 3:22 pm #
Well, when it comes to the existence of the universe and all that is in it, every theory is radical. There is no logical explanation that we can truly comprehend to why it all exists.
Did it magically explode out of nothing, did a deity such as God create it?
The Bible clearly indicates that humans did not evolve from more primitive species. The theory of macroevolution says that we did. Charles Darwin stated that if there were an organ of some sort found, that could not be broken down and still function properly, his theory would be greatly mistaken and unraveled. And we have found such and organ: the cell. The cell cannot not be broken down, or ‘de-evolved’ and still function.
Ironically, if you truly listen to Darwin, you will now see that macroevolution is a fallacy. But many ignore that part of the theory, and close their minds to true science, to the evidence before us, to continually swear that "there is no God".
If anything, science has only strengthened my faith, not unravel it. Christianity makes more sense scientifically than the supposed ’scientific’ theory of macroevolution.
And the Theory of Evolution is scientific. It is over 150 years old, and because of our knowledge of the cell, evidence Darwin did not have in 1850, and the lack of evidence by fossils, it is safe to conclude that the Theory of Evolution is outdated, with all due respect to Darwin and his research.
References :
yohn on 24 Sep 2009 at 3:59 pm #
No. Try reading the essay ‘The Age of The Universe’ by Dr. Gerald Schroeder found online, or the book ‘Genesis and the Big Bang’ by
the same author.
The Bible and good science do agree!
References :
WTFYW?LDG! on 24 Sep 2009 at 4:17 pm #
I deny it all! Yes, They are denying.
References :
Grand Master Mystic on 24 Sep 2009 at 4:53 pm #
You seem really immature.
You seem like the type to bash Humanities.
Science can tell you how people act.
Philosophy can tell you how people OUGHT to act.
References :
ChrisP on 24 Sep 2009 at 5:24 pm #
Only ignoring that which is falsely called science. Evolutionary theory for the origin of species is far from proven, scientifically speaking. There are many holes in the theory – for example, that nowhere can a progression from one kind of animal into another be found in the fossil record. They produce all kinds of drawings from their imaginations as to how changes gradually took place, but there is no fossil evidence to support these drawings – it is only imagination. I think I will choose the Bible account.
References :
http://www.icr.org
shmulfer on 24 Sep 2009 at 5:41 pm #
Yes and abandoning all logic and rational thinking. That’s a little more than I’m willing to pay for admission into Fantasy Land.
References :
Only Jesus Saves on 24 Sep 2009 at 6:26 pm #
It is not mutually exclusive.
I see science coming closer and closer to acknowledging their findings are so complex that only God is the answer. Cases in point:
1. Mathematics had to abandon the "logic and straight lines explain everything dogma" when Mandelbrot made them consider fractals.
2. Physics had to accept the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
3. Astronomers still cannot explain black holes or agree on the big bang.
Even Einstein acknowledged that the complexity of the universe must be attributable to a higher power.
References :
Connor on 24 Sep 2009 at 6:33 pm #
No. I believe in both. I believe in the bible (to an exstent I don’t believe it’s 100% the word of God because how could it be? It wasn’t written by him and I don’t trust humans to make sure they are writing it correctly). However I still believe dinosaurs roamed this earth along with all the other prehistoric animals.
-Connor
References :
magi on 24 Sep 2009 at 6:46 pm #
I believe in the Bible and science.
There is a difference between a literal translation and a literal interpretation. I hope you are aware of hermeneutics. The Bible is primarily taken as literal but some can be taken as non-literal or spiritual. The Bible is filled with idioms, metaphors, similes, analogies, hyperboles, personifications, parables, and prophecies.
Man cannot deny the Bible or real science because God created both. Man can deny junk science. Real science has never disproved the Bible.
References :
Steve-O on 24 Sep 2009 at 7:34 pm #
No, there is no such requirement, written or implied. Literal understanding of a book like the bible, with it’s parables and symbolism is an involved discussion topic. Many talk of interpreting the bible and it’s meaning. Until science proves there is no god, then faith in a book being the word of god does not deny science to any extent. Should any theory make you reject other theories? Should any fact make you reject other facts? Could God have created the universe using two particles for a big bang and manipulated the product over time in a manner we since labeled evolution? Many religions propose who created the universe, science is trying to say how it was done, history tells us what was done and estimates when. So far none seem to address why it was done. An intelligent person should acknowledge the potential that they are all correct.
References :
yellowflowers on 24 Sep 2009 at 8:03 pm #
Both science and religion, in their noblest forms, involve the search for truth. Science discovers a world of magnificent order, a universe that contains distinctive marks of intelligent design. True religion makes these discoveries meaningful by teaching that the mind of the Creator lies behind the design manifest in the physical world.
References :
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm
kamaeq on 24 Sep 2009 at 8:40 pm #
How about clarifying your question? You are assuming that Bible believers must reject and ignore science. You have not proven that case.
You would also have to define what you consider as "literal".
I have never found a reason as a Christian to deny science. I have found several reasons to deny scientists and their opinions, especially if they base them on shaky and unproven assumptions. After all science must be firmly based on observable facts that can be repeated, not speculations about things that haven’t been seen, that is the job of philosophy and religion.
Perhaps you are making the common mistake of assuming that science has something to do with philosophy, specifically epistemology.
References :
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/