How has science impacted your perspective on the Hebrew Bible?

[Gideon300]

Is it your hypothesis that scientists who believe in God are the "good" scientists? Exactly how do you determine who does and does not believe in God and how that either validates their work or dismisses it?

Have you ever considered that at one point in your evolutionary life you were nothing but a single cell that evolved?

It strikes me that you have God-like skill to determine what is "good science" and what is a terrible waste. The very evolutionary processes you seem to abhor are exactly how antibiotics were discovered and how they are tested.

Evolutionary biology was and is fundamental to understanding disease, combating drug resistant pathogens and increasing crop yields to name a few you might be familiar with. Where do you place Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics who validated the law of dominance, the law of segregation and the law of independent assortment?

Cancer acts as an evolutionary process within the body. All advances in cancer treatment is based on understanding the evolutionary processes within our cells. The longest living animals have evolved significant ability to detect cancer cells and defeat them. Understanding that cancer is an evolving adaptive system allows researchers to create therapies to combat their rapid evolution.

You do not know what evolution is. A single cell does not evolve. It has an inbuilt instruction set that tells the cell exactly how to grow and multiply. Evolution is a random, undirected and mindless process.

Biology does not need evolution to be understood. Some of the greatest advances have been since the discovery of DNA. Bill Gates knows something about computers. This is what he had to say about DNA: "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Computer programs do not evolve.

I tried programming once. All I did was copy a program word for word from a book. There was one typo in the code in the book. It took me hours to find it. It was something simple, a comma instead of a full stop, something like that. God created a code that is far above anything that we could write. It even includes a correcting mechanism. Without that, DNA eventually would become permanently damaged and human life come to an end. I could have done with that when I was trying to copy the program.

Antibiotics were discovered by accident. Fleming left his lab window open. Penicillin spores contaminated a dish that had bacteria. He noticed that the bacteria stopped reproducing and recorded it. He did nothing with the research. That was left to Florey and Chain. It had absolutely nothing to do with evolution.​

 

[Squigglylines]

If evolution were true then a creature begins at a state of complete innocence and evolves into a state more advanced in understanding eventually reaching a state of strength and understanding that it requires no salvation, only patience in that it will eventually evolve into a completely sinless creature if left alone to evolve to that point.

 

[GWH]

Whenever volcanic lava spews out and flows downward through the natural environment it carves up a pathway that resembles what Geologist's claim is multi layers of different sediment meaning in theory billions of years.

But one single eruption that took several hours created the same effect.

The Flood of Noah with gushing water coming up from the earth and rain downpouring created a similar effect upon the Grand Canyon which Geologist's claim took several billions of years to create when we understand God did it in a couple of weeks.

When meteors crash into the surface of the earth and the impact of massive heat and compaction creates a similar effect and Geologist's once again misage it.

One thing I always am intrigued about is the dating method using uranium. Tree Rings and Isotopes are more logical and practical but they're very limited to trees and ice. But Uranium is unusual because no one knows how long it takes for it to become mature other than guessing billions of years. Then Geologist's will take this mythical age and add a half shelf life to it and use it to date the age of items like rock, sediment, coal, diamonds, etc.

It's truly illogical but yet it's classified as Scientific Method. And that is where I begin to struggle because Mathematics on its own is absolute and true. But when you add it to Uranium Dating Methods you have made Mathematics fallible.

I believe all opinions having credible/reasonable evidence should be taught in schools and let the truth win.

 

[GWH]

That's quite a legacy.
What field of science did he study?

Math, aeronautics, astronomy and mechanical engineering.

 

[Gideon300]

I believe all opinions having credible/reasonable evidence should be taught in schools and let the truth win.

I was blessed to hear both the Bible creation account and the theory of Evolution. And it was taught as theory, not as established and incontrovertible fact. I was not born again. I believed that God was real but that's all. However, evolution made no sense to me. I accepted the Creation account, not that it made any difference to my life.

The science community won a great victory based on a lie. They drove a wedge between the spiritual and the materialistic. That allowed them to dismiss anything spiritual as religious and therefore unscientific. The real question is one of truth. And scientists are extremely careful to avoid that question.​

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

If evolution were true then a creature begins at a state of complete innocence and evolves into a state more advanced in understanding eventually reaching a state of strength and understanding that it requires no salvation, only patience in that it will eventually evolve into a completely sinless creature if left alone to evolve to that point.

Hinduism from which the New Age religions of the West get their roots, through demon possessed people like Helena Blavatski , teach this kind of evilutionism. One school of reincarnation teaches that you shall be gods, as the serpent told Eve. You shall not surely die.....you will be reincarnated into a higher life form...... evolution.......untill you are in a state of Nirvana or that of godhood. It depend mainly on the thoughts of the new ager since it's an eclectic hodgepodge of beliefs. A friend who attended our services for years finally came out of the closet as a New Ager who believed in infinite universes. The religion is one of self "perfection" and pride.

Then they add terms like metaphysics to make it sound like a science that can be proven through association with observable facts. If you ever heard the antichrist David Ickie, he has a method of deception...
He presents his concept of new age philosophy. Then he convinced his audience with comments about frequencies and light spectrums beyond human perception. His argument to convince the gullible is that since they know there's a spectrum beyond their perception, the other claims he makes, that are also unobservable, must be trusted as facts.
Then he goes into analogies about everything is vibration..
There's the new age "love frequency" that they claim is materialistic. It's all a bunch of hocus pocus disguised in scientific terminology.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Math, aeronautics, astronomy and mechanical engineering.

That's quite a large knowledge base. I'm sure he must be admired for those accomplishments

 

[GWH]

I was blessed to hear both the Bible creation account and the theory of Evolution. And it was taught as theory, not as established and incontrovertible fact. I was not born again. I believed that God was real but that's all. However, evolution made no sense to me. I accepted the Creation account, not that it made any difference to my life.

The science community won a great victory based on a lie. They drove a wedge between the spiritual and the materialistic. That allowed them to dismiss anything spiritual as religious and therefore unscientific. The real question is one of truth. And scientists are extremely careful to avoid that question.​

Yes, and some in the Christian community commit the same sin of divorcing science from Scripture.

 

[biblestudent78]

If evolution were true then a creature begins at a state of complete innocence and evolves into a state more advanced in understanding eventually reaching a state of strength and understanding that it requires no salvation, only patience in that it will eventually evolve into a completely sinless creature if left alone to evolve to that point.

Unfounded assumptions. Broken logic. We know evolution is true. We use it everyday just by the food we eat. The undefined issue is this: are we created by God or by a system of randomness? I have no problem understanding natural science from an evolutionary point of view. I have no problem believing humans were in some important way created by God. These two perspectives are not in conflict.

One is a study of creation and the other is the power behind creation. One of the defining characteristics of the God of the Bible is that truth is sacred. Truth is about what is both real and what is important. Science, on its best day can only approximate what is real.

The processes of evolution to me demonstrate that God is not done with His creation or His creative processes. If science was anti-God, it would not exist. It is not. It is just the desire of mankind to deal with the natural world. Hypotheses come and go. There is no static "truth" in science. It is a voyage of discovery. So too are our spiritual lives. We are invited by God to evolve from who we were to who God wants us to be. It too is a voyage of discovery. The power of the converted life and its requirement shows we too must evolve into a people closer to the heart of Jesus. The fact that there are thousands of theories about how that is done does not negate the fact that God's call for the evolution of our souls remains.

Perhaps this forum should pay more attention to the evolution God in Christ is demanding of us. Or would we rather divert the conversation away from our holy evolutionary requirement to focus instead on why our understanding of the natural world is wrong.

Biblically, our spiritual, emotional, financial and ethical evolution is the entire story of the bible. We were once A but after our connection to Jesus we now must evolve to B. Is it possible that we resist science based evolution because we also reject Christian evolution? "Jesus loves me just the way I am...." Jesus, "You must take up your cross daily." The entire New Testament details the evolution we are all called to make from our former sinful nature to toward the sinless nature of God.

Here are some waypoints on our daily evolutionary path:

God's call to us is not so much about details of beliefs, but the content of our hearts. If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And we have this commandment from Him: Whoever loves God must love his brother as well.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and exult in the surrender of my body, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no account of wrongs. Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be restrained; where there is knowledge, it will be dismissed. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial passes away.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways. Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of these is love.

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments

Jesus replied, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words.

Thus, we are called to evolve into the kind of human beings Jesus has called us to be. Not on the 1st day but over a lifetime....but change we must.

 

[lrs68]

Math, aeronautics, astronomy and mechanical engineering.

Did he have government contracts?

 

[DeanM]

I was blessed to hear both the Bible creation account and the theory of Evolution. And it was taught as theory, not as established and incontrovertible fact. I was not born again. I believed that God was real but that's all. However, evolution made no sense to me. I accepted the Creation account, not that it made any difference to my life.

The science community won a great victory based on a lie. They drove a wedge between the spiritual and the materialistic. That allowed them to dismiss anything spiritual as religious and therefore unscientific. The real question is one of truth. And scientists are extremely careful to avoid that question.​

The Piltdown (sp ck) Man led an entire generation astray, until it was a proven to be a fake.

 

[GWH]

Did he have government contracts?

He worked for Sandia Labs, which was a research arm of the Atomic Energy Commission.

 

[Roger316]

The Hubble space based telescope is looking back over 1 billion yrs in the past. Paleontology has demonstrate humanity has existed over hundreds of thousand of years. Geologists believe the earth is about 4 billion yrs old. Geoscientists look at crude oil that comes from 15,000 ft below the surface and see pollen grains, plant spores and algal cysts of ancient algae demonstrating ancient life on earth. These and many other data from the scientific community seem to describe a world very different than that of Genesis. How we relate to these evolving facts and how do we inform our children on the data that confronts the Genesis account?

Science has never informed my interpretation of the Genesis account.

Science, at its core, is a **fact‑finding discipline** — a disciplined way of observing, measuring, and testing the physical world. It gives us data, patterns, and models that help us describe how things behave. But when scientists communicate those findings, they inevitably step into the realm of **storytelling**. They weave the data into a narrative so that ordinary people can understand it. This is where phrases like “nature designed,” “nature selected,” or “nature gave rise to” appear. “Nature” becomes a kind of narrative stand‑in, a character used to ascribe causality in a way that feels coherent and intuitive. No one in the scientific community literally believes that “nature” is a conscious agent; it’s simply a convenient metaphor that helps connect complex ideas into a single, teachable storyline.

Because of this, science functions on two levels. There is the **empirical level**, where experiments, measurements, and peer review give us reliable information about the world. And then there is the **cultural level**, where we tell stories about those discoveries to make them feel unified, meaningful, and accessible. Professors and students understand that these stories are not literal accounts of agency but philosophical fictions — narrative devices that help us grasp the rational connections between physics, biology, chemistry, and the rest. Recognizing this difference doesn’t diminish science; it simply helps us see that scientific explanation, like biblical interpretation, uses narrative to make sense of reality.

We can fully embrace the products of empirical science — the measurements, observations, and repeatable results — without feeling obligated to accept the narrative framework that often accompanies them. The data themselves are solid: gravity accelerates objects at a predictable rate, DNA replicates in observable ways, stars emit measurable spectra. But when scientists explain these facts, they naturally weave them into a broader story using metaphors like “nature selects” or “nature produces,” which are narrative tools rather than literal descriptions of agency. Appreciating the empirical findings doesn’t require us to treat the narrative as ultimate truth; it simply means we can value the evidence while recognizing that the explanatory story is a cultural way of organizing that evidence, not a binding worldview.

 

[DeanM]

The Hubble space based telescope is looking back over 1 billion yrs in the past. Paleontology has demonstrate humanity has existed over hundreds of thousand of years. Geologists believe the earth is about 4 billion yrs old. Geoscientists look at crude oil that comes from 15,000 ft below the surface and see pollen grains, plant spores and algal cysts of ancient algae demonstrating ancient life on earth. These and many other data from the scientific community seem to describe a world very different than that of Genesis. How we relate to these evolving facts and how do we inform our children on the data that confronts the Genesis account?

We have free will. You can believe what you want.

 

[GWH]

Science has never informed my interpretation of the Genesis account.

Science, at its core, is a **fact‑finding discipline** — a disciplined way of observing, measuring, and testing the physical world. It gives us data, patterns, and models that help us describe how things behave. But when scientists communicate those findings, they inevitably step into the realm of **storytelling**. They weave the data into a narrative so that ordinary people can understand it. This is where phrases like “nature designed,” “nature selected,” or “nature gave rise to” appear. “Nature” becomes a kind of narrative stand‑in, a character used to ascribe causality in a way that feels coherent and intuitive. No one in the scientific community literally believes that “nature” is a conscious agent; it’s simply a convenient metaphor that helps connect complex ideas into a single, teachable storyline.

Because of this, science functions on two levels. There is the **empirical level**, where experiments, measurements, and peer review give us reliable information about the world. And then there is the **cultural level**, where we tell stories about those discoveries to make them feel unified, meaningful, and accessible. Professors and students understand that these stories are not literal accounts of agency but philosophical fictions — narrative devices that help us grasp the rational connections between physics, biology, chemistry, and the rest. Recognizing this difference doesn’t diminish science; it simply helps us see that scientific explanation, like biblical interpretation, uses narrative to make sense of reality.

We can fully embrace the products of empirical science — the measurements, observations, and repeatable results — without feeling obligated to accept the narrative framework that often accompanies them. The data themselves are solid: gravity accelerates objects at a predictable rate, DNA replicates in observable ways, stars emit measurable spectra. But when scientists explain these facts, they naturally weave them into a broader story using metaphors like “nature selects” or “nature produces,” which are narrative tools rather than literal descriptions of agency. Appreciating the empirical findings doesn’t require us to treat the narrative as ultimate truth; it simply means we can value the evidence while recognizing that the explanatory story is a cultural way of organizing that evidence, not a binding worldview.

Are you to be commended for confessing the sin of divorcing Scripture and Creation rather than harmonizing them? :^)

We must admit fallibility regarding understanding of both disciplines.
(My dad functioned on the "empirical" or applied level without straying into the theoretical,
which is where people go off the rails.)

 

[biblestudent78]

We have free will. You can believe what you want.

Mere belief is inadequate in both Christianity and in science.

 

[DeanM]

Mere belief is inadequate in both Christianity and in science.

How about faith in one but not the other? Will that work for you? You can talk about having it both ways all you want but banging the drum for those who brought you the big bang and evolution doesnt cut it. Whats the verse about God showing the wise to be fools?

 

[Roger316]

Are you to be commended for confessing the sin of divorcing Scripture and Creation rather than harmonizing them? :^)

We must admit fallibility regarding understanding of both disciplines.
(My dad functioned on the "empirical" or applied level without straying into the theoretical,
which is where people go off the rails.)

I don't understand what you mean. I didn't know that Scripture and Creation weren't already harmonious.

 

[biblestudent78]

Are you to be commended for confessing the sin of divorcing Scripture and Creation rather than harmonizing them? :^)

We must admit fallibility regarding understanding of both disciplines.
(My dad functioned on the "empirical" or applied level without straying into the theoretical,
which is where people go off the rails.)

I truly appreciate your candor. We are all confronted with two objectives in life. Understanding how to make it better (science) and how to make it more meaningful (religion).

The reality is that hard science is very often wrong and hard theology is very often wrong. We can look back at a continuum of both forces and how they interact. More often than we think, our human culture dictates our theology and too often our culture dictates our science. For instance, given that the Hebrew Bible covers about 900 yrs of cultural history and its related theology, usery (charging interest) was forbidden for the 900+ years of the Hebrew experience and the first 1,000 yrs of Christianity. Culture changed and now what was forbidden for 1,900 years is now the norm.

In 1616 Copernicus was under house arrest the rest of his life for claiming that the earth rotated around the sun. He barely escaped execution but Christianity declared his concepts heretical. It was not until 1835 was his name removed from the list of heretics.

The process of theological change as it relates to science has been gradual but accelerating as the public becomes more educated. A worldwide flood exceeding 26,000 ft deep that disappeared in 377 days is difficult for educated people to accept. Like Copernicus, stating the scientifically obvious is a threat to those with the same perspective as the 5,000 yr old Sumerians and their flood story and the same story repurposed around 700 BC in Judea in Genesis.

Jesus said divorce - except of adultery - is not acceptable to God. Yet the divorce rates of Christians and non-Christians are essentially the same, but my bet is you have never heard a sermon addressing the "umbilically" divorced in the congregation. Both are around 30% inside and outside the church.

Cultural shifts happen when we just quit talking about subjects that are no longer culturally acceptable. The Baptist Church split over the issue of slavery. The newly formed Southern Baptists (1845) allowed their missionaries to own slaves. Culturly, they were on the wrong side of history. However, it was not until 1995 (150 yrs later) that they admitted that owning other human being was wrong. Culture changes = theology changes. The powerful Pentecostal movement did not exist until the 20th century. Cultural changes result in theological changes.

My point is, if I have one, is that those who "hold firm" to the theology they were "given" also experience evolution in a theological sense. Once God allow women to be merchandise owned by their fathers and sold to their husbands that could have as much sex outside marriage (with the exception of other married women) as the wanted and as many wives as they could afford. For a married woman to have sex outside her marriage, the penalty was death. We have evolved and so has our "interpretation of the bible." We need to evolve as failed creatures committed to the option of evolving toward the image of our Lord. Perhaps one of the "gifts" we lack is a gift for the obvious.

 

[biblestudent78]

GWH
I truly appreciate your candor. We are all confronted with two objectives in life. Understanding how to make it better (science) and how to make it more meaningful (religion).

The reality is that hard science is very often wrong and hard theology is very often wrong. We can look back at a continuum of both forces and how they interact. More often than we think, our human culture dictates our theology and too often our culture dictates our science. For instance, given that the Hebrew Bible covers about 900 yrs of cultural history and its related theology, usery (charging interest) was forbidden for the 900+ years of the Hebrew experience and the first 1,000 yrs of Christianity. Culture changed and now what was forbidden for 1,900 years is now the norm.

In 1616 Copernicus was under house arrest the rest of his life for claiming that the earth rotated around the sun. He barely escaped execution but Christianity declared his concepts heretical. It was not until 1835 was his name removed from the list of heretics.

The process of theological change as it relates to science has been gradual but accelerating as the public becomes more educated. A worldwide flood exceeding 26,000 ft deep that disappeared in 377 days is difficult for educated people to accept. Like Copernicus, stating the scientifically obvious is a threat to those with the same perspective as the 5,000 yr old Sumerians and their flood story and the same story repurposed around 700 BC in Judea in Genesis.

Jesus said divorce - except of adultery - is not acceptable to God. Yet the divorce rates of Christians and non-Christians are essentially the same, but my bet is you have never heard a sermon addressing the "un-biblically" divorced in the congregation. Both are around 30% inside and outside the church.

Cultural shifts happen when we just quit talking about subjects that are no longer culturally acceptable. The Baptist Church split over the issue of slavery. The newly formed Southern Baptists (1845) allowed their missionaries to own slaves. Culturly, they were on the wrong side of history. However, it was not until 1995 (150 yrs later) that they admitted that owning other human being was wrong. Culture changes = theology changes. The powerful Pentecostal movement did not exist until the 20th century driven by social outcasts. Cultural changes result in theological changes.

My point is, if I have one, is that those who "hold firm" to the theology they were "given" also experience evolution in a theological sense. Once God allowed women to be merchandise - owned by their fathers and sold to their husbands who could have as much sex outside marriage (with the exception of other married women) as the wanted and as many wives as they could afford. For a married woman to have sex outside her marriage, the penalty was death. We have evolved and so has our "interpretation of the bible." We need to evolve as failed creatures committed to the option of evolving toward the image of our Lord. Perhaps one of the "gifts" we lack is a gift for the obvious.