Comments on: The Rise of Antiscience

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 04:12:52 +0000

Blog Jones: I couldn’t agree more with your statement that you can’t use the Bible to prove anything scientifically. However it is important to keep in mind that “science” changes its collective mind frequently.

So our only option is not what you posted in your original posting (”If your interpretation of the Bible is right, then it will stand up to the evidence. If it isn’t then you need to fix your interpretation of the Bible.”)

The contradiction will come as frequently (if not more frequently) from faulty, but accepted, science as from a wrong interpretation of Scripture.

By: microfab

microfab — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 01:37:16 +0000

Jonesy, you might consider that “objective evidence” can only be evaluated by subjective perception! In other words, you and I can look at the same material thing and come to distinctly different conclusions about it because our perception might be different. Obvious examples are color, optical illusions, etc. Perception can be fooled. Why should our perceptions be different–depends on what we believe, have been exposed to, learned, ate, drank, smoked, etc. Everything we observe has to be interpreted by our own little brains. So perception is really a “belief” about “objective evidence”.

Next consider that the Bible is one “kind” of revelation of God and that “objective evidence”, i.e. the world around us, is also a revelation of God (the Heavens declare the Glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork).

So “objective evidence” then is understood by putting tests to it. Dropping apples out of trees, dropping big and little balls off leaning towers, and such. Doing these tests (of God’s revelation) long enough leads to a theory, which leads to a model (or law) that explains what we observe. Keep in mind that the model is only an explanation of what we believe to be true based on observations.

So too is Biblical revelation analyzed. We should put it to the test to verify it in our own experience. Finding a promise of scripture to be consistently true causes us to have a rational belief in the statement of scripture. Sure, someone might arrive at an errant interpretation, but this wouldn’t invalidate the reality of the “objective evidence” of the Bible. (Just like a color blind person might conclude that the green light was red, even though the illuminant maximum was “measured” to be 550 nm wavelength–but most would consider this to be a defect in the person, not the “objective evidence”.) Of course the measurement is only another means of perception–but it has been a pretty useful model to explain light.

So it really does come down to belief, huh.

Peter said, comparing to his own personal senses and experience “we have a more sure word of prophesy”. So just as it is logical, “scientific”, sensible that I am sitting and typing right now–so much so that I can say I “know” that I am doing so–I can even more so say that the Bible is true, without error, etc. If you don’t believe so, test it.

By: Blog Jones

Blog Jones — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:38:03 +0000

Filosofo: The point is that what changed was interpretation of the evidence. I emphasized objective in my post to differentiate it from the misinterpreted and false evidence of the crackpots.

Paul: See, here’s the problem: You and I might believe that the Bible is infallible, etc., etc. But a scientist attempting to base his research on the evidence he sees around him can’t accept the alleged testimony of God here. From his point of view, the Bible is no more inspired than the Koran, the Upanishads, or the Washington Post.

For science to be any good, it has to be based on evidence or on interpretation of evidence or at the very least estimates and theories based on the evidence; it can’t be based on the untestable words of any religious text, including the Bible. We might be able to rely on the Bible as infallible, but you can’t use the Bible to prove something to anyone scientifically.

By: filosofo

filosofo — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:06:42 +0000

Sure there are crackpots out there who reject all science. But wrong on the other end of the spectrum is the naive view that science is based on “objective” evidence. The Copernican revolution is a perfect example: when it occurred, it was not because suddenly there was new evidence, or anything like that. In fact, all the facts had been the same; even more, the Copernican theory was actually more complicated than the Ptolemaic theory. What changed? A shift in interpretation, which is never so clean-cut as “objective evidence.”

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:33:29 +0000

No real surprise…crackpots are as old as the earth. It is a fine line to balance between checking what the Bible means and what science shows, however, there are several simple guidlines to remember:
1. Bible, being inspired, is infallible and inerrant.
2. When a “seeming” contradiction arises, remember that science is subject to the imperfect mind of man, thus any seeming contradiction must be decided in Scripture’s favor.
3. There are no true contradictions between the Bible and science (properly defined at least).

This guy takes his Scripture out of context. The first reference Psalm 93:1 is allegorical describing the majesty and strength of God.

His second passage Job 26:7 and indeed the earth “hangeth upon nothing”, but that does not prove Copernican theory…Gravity, magnetic pulls, etc…are nothing (not matter or energy). So this verse does not disprove or prove anything.

The greatest pity is that secularists will look at his website and see it as confirmation that all Christians must be ignorant hicks…poor testimony.