Discussion:
Science and the Bible
(too old to reply)
**Rowland Croucher**
2008-06-23 22:32:48 UTC
Permalink
(A reflection offered to an Australian Baptist church).

It=92s been lovely weather here lately, hasn=92t it? Not only during the=
=20
day but also at night. The night sky has been fantastic this week =96 I=20
often go for a short walk in the evening and the Milky Way this week has=20
looked fantastic stretched across the sky. I sometimes use my=20
bird-watching binoculars to get a closer look at the gas cloud up in the=20
handle of The Pot and I love the fuzzy star cluster Omega Centauri near=20
the Southern Cross that looks like a new furry tennis ball and has 5=20
million suns . . . it makes me think of Psalm 8: =93When I consider the=20
heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you=20
have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him?

Four hundred years ago this year, a brilliant mathematician, scientist=20
and God-fearing man, Galileo, heard that someone has made a telescope so=20
he decided to make one for himself and observe the night sky. He soon=20
discovered that there were four moons orbiting Jupiter and from his=20
observations he worked out that the earth must be orbiting round the sun.
These days everyone would agree that Galileo got it right =96 including=20
all of us here today. Back then though, Galileo had a problem in=20
getting people to agree with him: the reason was that most influential=20
people in the church of his day disagreed with him =96 they had no doubt=20
that the Bible clearly stated that the sun revolved around the earth.

One Catholic priest claimed that Galileo=92s conclusions were not only=20
heretical but atheistic. Other attacks included a claim that =93his=20
pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation=94 and=
=20
that =93it casts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation.=94 While=20
much of the criticism came from the Catholic Church, it was not limited=20
to that. John Calvin and Martin Luther also objected.

Galileo was subsequently tried before the Roman inquisition in 1633, and=20
ultimately forced to =93abjure, curse and detest=94 his own work. He=20
remained under house arrest for the remainder of his life, and his=20
publications were banned. Only in 1992 -- 359 years after the trial --=20
was an apology issued by Pope John Paul II: =93Galileo sensed in his=20
scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the=20
depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his=20
intuitions.=94

Is there a lesson to be learnt here? Surely this is a classic case of=20
Christians back then treating the Bible as though its purpose was to=20
teach science.

Allow me to be a little bit controversial. I=92ve got a sneaking=20
suspicion that something similar is happening in our world today. I=20
can=92t imagine any of us saying to someone else =93Well, I=92m sorry, bu=
t=20
you=92re wrong. The Bible clearly states that the sun revolves around th=
e=20
earth. I mean, if you don=92t believe that, let=92s be logical, let=92s =
throw=20
out the rest of the Bible. You either believe the Bible is inspired or=20
you don=92t.=94 I=92ve never actually heard THAT conversation, but this =
one=20
is a bit more familiar, I think you=92ll agree: =93Well, I=92m sorry, b=
ut=20
you=92re wrong. The Bible clearly states that the God created the world=20
in seven days. I mean, if you don=92t believe that, let=92s be logical,=20
let=92s throw out the rest of the Bible. You either believe the Bible is=20
inspired or you don=92t.=94

You may or may not be aware that some of the world=92s most respected=20
believers in evolution are also passionate followers of Christ. Dr.=20
Francis Collins is one.

Francis Collins is an internationally respected authority in the area of=20
DNA research. In his book =93The Language of God=94 he mentions the long=
=20
process whereby he ceased to be an atheist and became a Christian. He=20
mentions the end of that time in the following words:
=93I had to make a choice. A full year had passed since I decided to=20
believe in some sort of God, and now I was being called to account. On=20
a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains during my=20
first trip west of the Mississippi, the majesty and beauty of God=92s=20
creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a=20
beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew=20
the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the=20
sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.=94

Today Francis Collins continues to be a passionate Bible-believing=20
witness for the Lord amongst the world=92s leading scientists =96 and he=20
continues to believe more than ever that God has used evolution in the=20
creation of the world.

I don=92t know whether he=92s right about evolution, but then again, I=92=
m a=20
language teacher and he=92s a world renowned molecular biologist, so if=20
I=92m not to be arrogant like the church authorities in Galileo=92s day,=20
I=92ve got to admit he=92s got more chance of being right than I have,=20
because that=92s his field of expertise.

But let=92s be clear, guys, about where I=92m coming from here, I=92m not=
=20
trying to convince anyone here to believe in evolution. Frankly, I=20
think the whole young earth/old earth debate is not what God wants us to=20
spend our time arguing about. And God certainly doesn=92t want any perso=
n=20
searching for spiritual truth distracted and turned off the Bible and=20
Jesus Christ by my insistence that they must share my belief in some=20
aspect of science.

What I feel quite sure about is that Paul was right when he reminds us=20
how to approach the Bible in II Timothy 3: 16: =93All Scripture is=20
God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and=20
training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly=20
equipped for every good work.=94

As Christians today let us all be passionate about our faith, but let us=20
also reflect on the words of Proverbs 19:2: =93It is not good to have zea=
l=20
without knowledge.=94

Ross Mildenhall
--=20


Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ (20,000 articles 4000 humor)

Blogs - http://rowlandsblogs.blogspot.com/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

Funny Jokes and Pics - http://funnyjokesnpics.blogspot.com/
AJA
2008-06-25 16:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for this, Rowland. It's very helpful as in several groups the
question has come up. I've heard things like, If you don't believe the
Genesis creation story literally, then you have to throw the whole Bible
out. Interesting about Dr. Francis Collins. And good thoughts in your post
about the basics of the faith in Christ Jesus.
Blessings,
Ann
curmudgeon
2008-06-27 01:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Can you can take the bible seriously but not literally?
When all is said and done, is not the bible *GOD'S*
very own autobiography?


*curmudgeon*
"The best read illiterate in the country"
d***@aol.com
2008-06-28 15:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by curmudgeon
Can you can take the bible seriously but not literally?
When all is said and done, is not the bible *GOD'S*
very own autobiography?
It is what people have written about their encounter with God. It is
hardly His autobiography, we are incapable of comprehending His
extent, much less confining Him to a book.
**Rowland Croucher**
2008-06-28 15:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by curmudgeon
Can you can take the bible seriously
Very
Post by curmudgeon
but not literally?
Depends what is meant by that: my pedantic University English Prof used
to say that 'literal' can be understood as a *universal* term inclusive
of many 'literary' styles - IOW the term includes metaphor, parable,
poetry etc.
Post by curmudgeon
When all is said and done, is not the bible *GOD'S*
very own autobiography?
Yes and no. The traditional Christian approach to inspiration is that it
is both God and the authors - through the lens of the authors'
experiences of God, and their own unique linguistic style - who write
Holy Scripture. (IOW you don't need a 'dictation theory' to have a 'high
view' of the Bible's inspiration). >
Post by curmudgeon
*curmudgeon*
"The best read illiterate in the country"
--
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ (20,000 articles 4000 humor)

Blogs - http://rowlandsblogs.blogspot.com/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

Funny Jokes and Pics - http://funnyjokesnpics.blogspot.com/
Matthew Johnson
2008-06-28 15:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by curmudgeon
Can you can take the bible seriously but not literally?
When all is said and done, is not the bible *GOD'S*
very own autobiography?
No. It is rather the history of God's revelation to Man. As a history, it is
written in the style of a history of the various different ages and cultures for
which it was written.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
l***@hotmail.com
2008-06-28 15:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by curmudgeon
Can you can take the bible seriously but not literally?
When all is said and done, is not the bible *GOD'S*
very own autobiography?
*curmudgeon*
"The best read illiterate in the country"
And after all, it is all a matter of faith. That God Himself and the
very creation of all that has been brought into existence outside
of Him is beyond the scope of our existence, is it not better
to believe that God would be truthful in His revelation of such
matters?

Remember, Moses recorded the Genesis record. He recorded it
during his personal meetings on Sinai. If one dabbles in an
allegorical rendering, where does one stop? Where are the rules
that define what is and what isn't allegorical or that one allegorical
rendering is the true kernel of truth while another isn't. If you
have no means of verification you have no safeguard against
error.

Besides, where did the theory of evolution come from?
s***@yahoo.com
2008-07-03 01:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
No. It is rather the history of God's revelation to Man.
Yeah, and I like say it's the story of "attempting to become the
people of God",
'cause if you read the old testament, they failed. A lot. They were a
pack of pagans.

Rowlands certainly got it right here. The same sense of wonder that
makes people
religeous makes them scientific.

Nils
d***@aol.com
2008-07-04 04:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
No. It is rather the history of God's revelation to Man.
Yeah, and I like say it's the story of "attempting to become the
people of God",
'cause if you read the old testament, they failed. A lot. They were a
pack of pagans.
Is this to the point? How did that get in here? We were talking about
literalism, I thought
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Rowlands certainly got it right here. The same sense of wonder that
makes people
religeous makes them scientific.
Nils, I just don't follow what you are saying or what your point is,
please explain what point you are trying to make.

Daryl

Loading...