Moved Mountains

Banner - Mt Trio, Stirling Range National Park, Western Australia - (c) 2007

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Science and the Bible

What's the problem with this quote?


In our experience, anti-evolution materials that do not use the Bible are overall much less effective. This is because the conflict is not over scientific facts fundamentally, but over the presuppositions that determine how we interpret those facts. The Bible provides the correct presuppositions about the past, enabling us to understand the scientific data correctly. If a person doesn’t accept the Bible as being inerrant revealed truth from God, then, since all beliefs about the past are equally impervious to scientific proof, there is no imperative for them to relinquish their evolutionary beliefs, even though biblical creation explains the bulk of the scientific evidence more plausibly.
Gary Bates, Creation Ministries International

3 comments:

Steve Martin said...

At least 3 things wrong with this quote:

1. “This is because the conflict is not over scientific facts fundamentally, but over the presuppositions that determine how we interpret those facts”

problem: The conflict is not even primarily about our resuppositions on how to interpret the scientific evidence, but our presuppositions on how we as Christians interpret the bible.

2. “The Bible provides the correct presuppositions about the past, enabling us to understand the scientific data correctly.”

problem: Wow. The purpose of the Bible is a science book? I thought it was about revealing God’s love & plan for redemption for humanity. The science in the bible is incidental to its main purpose. Those who try to make it into a science book do a disservice to the Word of God.

3. “biblical creation explains the bulk of the scientific evidence more plausibly.”

Problem: I don’t think the author of this quote has the same definition of plausible that I do. :-)

The Creature said...

Hey Steve!

I think the presuppositions exist in both arenas and effect both arenas. How we view God, in the broadest sense, is going to influence how we view origins. Obviously (again in the broadest sense) an atheist is going to discount any theory of origins that involves a creator of any kind simply because he is an atheist. A theist is going to work in a similar, yet opposite way. This is how our presuppositions influence the way we interpret data of any kind - even biblical data.

I agree whole heartedly with your statement regarding viewing the Bible as a scientific text.

The difference of opinion then is in the "interpretation" of the scientific data then or of the role of the Bible in interpreting it?

I actually threw this one out there as a bit of bait. I was interested in seeing the responses garnered. Personally I don't have too many concerns with the statement itself. I might have concerns with the way information the information is presented or the apologetical approach taken by those presenting it, but generally I don't really have a problem with the quote.

Thanks for your input! :)

James said...

What's wrong with evolution?

And if there is something wrong with it, why did God make the universe to look so old?