The Bible and Science

I received a response on Facebook about my last post. Basically, arguing that there are passages in the Bible that show how much the people of that time knew about science, and that it was because God told them about it. Therefore, I'm assuming that to mean, that the stories in the Bible are facts for scientific discussion. This is my response.

Here is one collection of examples of where the bible is plain wrong about science, or contradicts what we currently know according to visible evidence.  This is not the only list like this of its kind.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean it's a reliable source for me to know what time it is.

The Bible is not to be generally discounted, but science relies on empirical evidence, not someone's stories about what is true or not. Many experiments and challenges have been made to evolution, and that's where it holds water. The challenges to the bible are unanswered other than more "it's in the Bible." That's not science. Again, not to be discounted, but it's not the scientific method.

The people who lived long ago were right about a lot of things. The people who made Stonehenge, before there was written language, probably used ball bearing technology to erect the 40 ton stones, and it wasn't until DaVinci's time that it was used again. That doesn't mean that the people of Stonehenge's time understood gravity, astronomy, chemistry, or even basic biology. We don't know what they knew, but even if we had written language from their time, we can't base today's understanding on their understanding unless we can reproduce their findings.

It's impossible to reproduce the findings that the people in the Bible have asserted - the existence of God, how plants and animals came to be, etc. They are stories that have no meaning or proof in today's science, but were probably very meaningful at their time. Until the stories of creation in the Bible are scientifically challenged and then proven to be the most likely scenario based on those results, it is not science. It not science any more than I can assert that a giant turtle rules the galaxy and kills people at will because he is actually a carnivorous turtle and is hungry and expect it to be taken seriously. Science takes what we see today, in our world that we live in right now, and uses that information to make an assessment of what is the best explanation. Belief takes stories, either of our own making or that have been handed down or read in a book, and then looks around to see proof.

I came to my belief in reincarnation by reading, listening to stories, and my own internal ideas. No empirical evidence at all. It's how anyone comes to believe in God, how anyone comes to believe in the afterlife or the beforelife, how anyone comes to believe that the world is here for humans' benefit. These things are told to us, so we believe. Or its something we've developed over time because it makes sense to us or we like them. Depending on where we grow up, we were taught to believe different things. And depending on whether we embrace science and spirituality together, but different, or whether we try to make science or spirituality the only thing that matters, will also affect what we believe.

Long ago, the church used to own science. When true scientists challenged the belief that the earth is flat, or that the earth revolved around the sun, they were rejected and even put to death, because belief resists change. Science encourages change, and it lends itself to being upgraded.

I determine the difference between science and belief like this - If an alien came down from another planet and looked at our claims to what we know, science would be the things that we can reproduce without language or words, and show them how it works. Beliefs are the things that we would have to explain with stories. It's impossible to explain creationism without language. Science, doesn't need language, it's simply there. For us to be truly human, we need both, although they are very different from one another.

Science vs. Faith

Some say that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism. I suppose for some, that might be true. But not for me. I use no faith to come to my understanding of how our world works and do not "believe" in evolution. It happens to be the best explanation out there given the evidence, but I'm willing to change my opinion at any time given new information. It's the same approach I give to understanding history. I don't have "faith" that things happened. I have evidence, and I change my view of history as I receive new evidence, knowing full well that most likely, whatever it is that I understand about what happened in the past is from snippets of evidence. That's not belief. Belief requires no evidence other than simply believing. For example, I believe in reincarnation - but there's no reproducible evidence for it or against it, and it can never really be known if it's true (until our species evolves enough that we can have a shared experience of the afterlife).

Some creationists are very offended when their belief that man was plunked here on Earth by the hand of God is labeled "anti-intellectual." Calling it judgmental. There are people who judge creationists for other reasons, and but calling a story believed first and then using evidence to prove it as "anti-intellectual" isn't a  judgment. For example, saying that believing in reincarnation is anti-intellectual, I am being told that I derive my opinions from belief, not my intellect, which is absolutely true. It's not a judgment, so much as discriminating understanding of how one comes to a conclusion.

It is possible to reconcile evolution and religious texts, even with an orthodox reading of them. I know enough people who do to know it's possible. One thing that I believe (and it is not scientifically proven, however I see lots of compassionate people believe this, too) is that science and religion are two sides of the same coin, coming at trying to understand our existence from two different approaches. Neither is better, but they are indeed different. I think teaching our kids this distinction is very good for them, because it allows them to be able to have their own personal beliefs (and not be threatened by others) while also being able to look objectively at the world and let the world (that many believe God created) teach us about who we are and where we can go. Without science/intellect we are lost in a bubble of inbred stories, and without belief/faith we are lost in a void of loneliness and separation from our humanity.

We need science and faith. And they are not the same. We need both scientists and spiritualists. And they are not the same. To me, the most amazing people, and the ones who are able to see what others cannot, are those who have both within them, who can separate, yet reconcile the two sides of the coin. Alan Watts, good example. Albert Einstein, another one. Pema Chodron, another one. Deepak Chopra, yet another.

It's those who divide themselves into one or the other, and then fight each other, who will always be fighting, and never growing or learning. And if there is a God, I'm sure that would make him very sad indeed.

Are We Ready?

Is the human race ready for the things that we know how to do?

Religion Is Not Science...Who-da Thunk?

Here's a discussion on Slashdot on how Intelligent Design is not science.

Why does it have to be an either/or thing between science and religion? At what point will we be able to see just how much they are related to one another?

Sometimes, I wonder, if humanity is hard wired to find ways to argue with one another.