Is Science A Higher Authority Than The Bible?

I appreciate Swamidas’ comments at the opening. However, the quote of the month from Sagan speaks volumes on the “rules” of science in our day. “On the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated, more over that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.” Speaks specifically that current science is not investigative, but rather extremely bias toward a materialistic answer to existence. We are told in this statement that intuitive reason is not valid in the face of materialism. By calling those disagree with his bias toward materialism uninitiated, Sagan tries destroy any open scientific inquiry destroy based on observation and reason. IF you don’t see it his way you are out! Of course evolution does not fail if we have declared that it is the only possible answer.

The notion that God did not create the answer plainly for us implies that God, the author of the universe must be on trial before us. Genesis is his evidence that he created all things and that creatures reproduce after their own kind.

Why would evolution be required to understand biology in the present day? To assert that closes the door to any real evidence to the contrary. It places evolution in the place of

God-all things must come under the requirements of Evolution.

Sagan’s statement proves that current science does “read into (its) science the “fact” that God cannot be allowed. His bias toward science is shown in his own words.

When I began my career in science we were instructed to design our experiments in an effort to prove our theory wrong. If the theory survived strenuous testing it may yet be true.

We often find it difficult to eliminate our bias concerning our own theories. This is why we invite critique and testing by others, not dismissing them as “uninitiated”.

Many experiments currently proposed concerning wildlife issues have the assumption of global warming in their abstracts. In effect this negates any findings which are independent of warmer temperatures. We see that this can hide the “real” findings from us.

Old earth “evidence” is assumed because of a priori requirements to make the gradual changes of evolution to work. When some in science see evidence to the contrary it is labelled as an anomaly. The evidence is there, but it is not considered valid because it does not agree with the a priori assumption. Evolution is only a proven "fact" if you assume that it is the only reasonable explanation.

Well...I would be interested in hearing what cwh has to say to this...He has had some comments on this subject in the past...

Hello All,

Methodological naturalism is certainly how science is currently performed. Scientists largely go about asking and answering questions that are limited by the physical domain, and editors do their best to make sure that those questions and answers stick with methodological naturalism. In my estimation, this mindset is so prevalent, that (sadly) many scientists reject alternative questions and answers, including thouse about our Creator, out of hand.

I would say that our Creator and Lord, and His Holy Word, are unquestionably a higher authority than science, but too many in the scientific fields refuse to accept anything that cannot be physically measured or detected. Where my thinking becomes a bit controversial is I accept both the authority of God's Word and the evidence of His Works (a la Francis Bacon, and his "two books") that suggest an ancient earth and biological evolution. I understand that many conservative Christians view this as a "sell out" and would claim that despite my stated beliefs, I hold science as an authority over the Bible. I attempt to counter this by pointing out that it is a literal interpretation of Genesis that I disagree with, and not the authoritative message. God is the Creator of our universe (and any others that might exist!). He created humanity with a special non-physical component (I can only guess how He did this) able to commune with Him. Humanity chose their own direction instead of God's, and all of humanity to this day falls short, no matter how "good" of a life we live. The rest of the Bible gives us the Good News of what Jesus Christ has done on our behalf and the free gift of restored life with our Creator, if we but choose to accept it. The message of Genesis is not the details of how God created, or how long He took, but who He is and who we are -- rebellious children in need of His saving grace.

Just one question for cwh. If the "message of Genesis is not the details of how God created, or how long He took" (your words), then why does God go to such great lengths in Genesis 1 and 2 to describe for us "the details of how He created and how long it took Him to create?" God could have just started with Genesis 3 if he wanted us to know that we are rebellious children in need of His saving grace. There is compelling scientific evidence available to us today that convinces me that Genesis 1 is a historic narrative and convincingly describes for us "the details of how God created and how long it too Him to create." In the winsome words of Kirk Peters (above), "the evidence is there, but it is not considered valid because it does not agree with the a priori assumption. Evolution is only a proven "fact" if you assume that it is the only reasonable explanation."

Hey SMS,

Even when I did hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis, I had quite a few questions about the Genesis account. For example, what were "evening and morning" prior to the existence of the sun? How was Eve made from Adam's rib? What was "dust of the earth" referring to? There are details that are definitely missing, suggesting that the details are not what the passage is about. I think it is quite plausible that the Genesis account was written to a people that had recently been delivered from Egyptian domination after hundreds of years of exposure to Egyptian culture and gods and had no foundational scripture on which to hold their faith firm. The account in Genesis 1 shows God's preeminence over all that the Egyptians worshiped.

What evidence do you use to argue for the historical narrative viewpoint?

It seems to me that the issue for a proper understanding of Genesis 1 is not a literal versus a figurative interpretation; it is a question of the intended message of the Hebrew text. There is nothing wrong with taking literally a passage that is intended to be taken literally, that is, according to the letters of the text. Most of the time, to take a passage literally, is to take it seriously. 99% of our conversations, emails, or text messages are understood in their plain sense. The literal sense is the plain sense, the normal meaning, or the straightforward meaning of the written text. This is the default, so we must depart from the normal meaning of the passage only when there are reasons from the context that demand it. The burden of proof is on those who adopt another meaning. Not only must it be shown that another meaning can be used; it must be shown that another meaning should be used in this context. Some creation evolutionists (and also evolutionary theists) assume that by demonstrating the former ("can"), they have demonstrated the latter ("should"). This is simply not true. Let me provide one example from Genesis 1. We should take the word day (Hebrew: yom) in its normal sense for several reasons, and those who would interpret the word differently must provide an explanation for the following:

1. In 2,225 occurrences, the word day is never used in the Old Testament to mean a long period of time.

2. If eons or long periods of time had been intended, the writer would have used the Hebrew word for time extended into the distant past or future, which is “holam”.

3. When the word day is used with a specific number, it always, always means a twenty-four-hour day.

4. When used in a number series – a sequence – the word “yom” always means a twenty-four-hour day, whether in the 119 instances in the Pentateuch or in the 357 instances outside the Pentateuch.

5. Whenever the word day is used in the plural, which happens 858 times, it always means a twenty-four-hour day. This is its clear meaning in Exodus 20: 11 and 31:17. (I'll discuss this later).

6. Whenever the word day is used in the singular and not in a compound grammatical construction, it means a twenty-four-hour day.

7. The mention of "evening and morning" for the six days of creation is a reference to the daily interchange of light and darkness. In 19 instances outside of Genesis 1 where the words evening and morning are combined with the Hebrew word for day, the reference is always to a twenty-four-hour day. The same is true in another 38 passages with evening and morning when the word day is not mentioned. Furthermore, in the Old Testament the phrase “evening and morning” is never used figuratively.

8. The clustering of the individual numerals, the sequence of numbers, and the phrase "evening and morning” provide strong, cumulative evidence for taking day as a twenty-four-hour day. This is an important part of the contextual argument, which points out what the word “day” means in this context. In other words, with all of these clear indicators pointing to twenty-four hours, and with no clear indicators pointing to long ages, the word “yom” must be taken to mean twenty-four hours.

9. As mentioned before, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 make little sense unless the days of creation are twenty-four-hour days.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"

These passages make it clear that the days of Genesis 1 are not to be understood as a literary convention. No corresponding passage appears in the Bible that gives such a figurative use for “day.”

10. Genesis 1:14 speaks of the purpose of the lights, that is, to separate day from night and to serve as signs to mark seasons, days, and years. There is no hint of any other meaning than the twenty-four-hour day, and the lining up of days next to seasons and years confirms the normal meaning of the word day. The Hebrew text certainly doesn’t say that the lights are to "serve as signs to make seasons and eons and years." The juxtaposition of days next to seasons and years makes this clear. And if days mean twenty-four-hour days here, then they mean twenty-four-hour days in the rest of the chapter. There is no indication that the word “yom” is used figuratively in this context. In fact, every indication is quite the opposite.

11. Genesis 1:16 also uses day in its normal sense. The sun rules over the day, not over eons or millions of years. These uses of day in several places, other than the summary statement at the end of each creative day, confirms the normal meaning of the word day. Besides the six summary uses of the word day at the end of each day, the Hebrew word for day appears another eight times in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and, including those summary uses, a total of eleven times in chapter 1.

12. There is no good reason to assume that light could not have existed before the creation of the sun, the moon, and the stars. God is the source of light. Therefore, the creation of light before the creation of the sun is not a reason for taking day figuratively.

One final point. The Lord God who created the entire universe out of nothing would have no problem creating Eve from the rib of Adam. While God doesn't supply EVERY detail concerning is creative activity in Genesis 1-2. He doesn't give us every answer to every question, but He DOES supply enough detail for us to know HOW He created and HOW LONG it took.

While the results of scientific research are important, the final decision about the relative age of the earth and the intent of Genesis 1 needs to be made on the basis of the text of Scripture rather than science. The “book” of nature (your reference to Bacon) is not as authoritative or as unambiguous as the Book of God. The testimony of Scripture, from Genesis 1 to the rest of the Old and New Testaments, is clear and unanimous – God created in six twenty-four hour days and in the relatively recent past.

Genesis says that God made the Sun, moon, and stars to mark the seasons and days. That means that those periods were created first and then the markers that we know today.

Making Eve from Adam's rib would be no more difficult that making a T. Rex out of nothing.

The signal for me, that an a priori assumption is prevalent is when they say "no one argues against evolution." Following this, as Sagan remarks in our "quote of the month", those questioning it are uninitiated. So those of another opinion are sophomoric or naive. Geology was my minor in college, and i have stood in "ancient" river channels, and fossil beds, and have seen that not all observations line up with the assumption of evolution. Consider massive rock formations that sit under thousands of square miles, why is there no evidence of erosion if these were laid down over millions of years? They were laid down very quickly.

Mathematics is science, a fairly exacting science. The mathematics of probability speak starkly against evolution from non-life to life. It takes a denial of science to attribute the genetic diversity we know today to random chance. Only a very few instances exist where two different species can be crossed. Even when they can be, the offspring is usually sterile. Hybrid sunfish, mules, beefalo, etc. We count on that phenomenon. Farmers count on genetics running so true that they can expect a certain number of rows on an ear of corn. Look in a seed supply catalog. You expect to grow veggies just like the picture. Why? Because there is a "of species". Most mutations are lethal, many of the rest are debilitating.

Are "mutations" in the laboratory really new genetic forms or just forms that are already in the gene pool and are able to survive the selection agent or action.

I though about the main question before us in this section and my comments from earlier. I think Sagan's comments about creating a process of evaluation that excludes any unwanted results cripple the most important scientific apparatus we have, the human mind. This God-given organ is fantastic in its capability, but is hindered most by seeing only what it wants to see.

Please read a couple of books, if you would; Undeniable by Douglas Axe; and The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi. Both excellent and thought provoking. As a theologian I do not agree with everything Mr. Mangalwadi proposes, but his fact-finding and his presentation is very interesting.

With respect, Kirk

Here is a link to Kirk Peter's review of UNDENIABLE.

Great job commenting at the last minute guys! Comments will all be closed for Christmas sometime this evening...

Sorry friends, before I finished my last post, it went airborne. Genesis 1 and 2 is an establishment of a relationship; the relationship between God and Man. He is the creator, we are the created. He the potter, we the clay, (me the cracked pot). Genesis chapters one and two answer the question before us right now. God is a greater authority than science. (I would say that His Word is true science in the recognition that he ordered all things out of chaos.) The earth was void and without form; God ordered it through his creation of physical and natural laws. Man studies these things and calls it science. In the first two chapters of Genesis God demonstrates His authority over all the universe in the revelation that he made it. This includes man, whose reason is subject to God. Proverbs chapter 1 vs. 7 says that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. To understand, one must recognize and appreciate that the Lord is in the role of creator and we are not. Random chance is not.

Romans 1:20: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images, made to look like mortal mand and birds and animals and reptiles."

And also from 2 Timothy 4:3 & 4: For the time will come when men will not put up with sound teaching. INstead to suit thier own desires they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. The will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. "

Friends, read Job chapter 38 and following and ask yourself if you have done the things and know the things mentioned there.

God is the creator of all things, his Word is above our study of science. Science and its observations belong to him.

I don't believe it would be difficult at all for God to create anything, so I am certainly not questioning God's ability to literally make a woman out of a rib, if that is what He decided to do. My point was that there are a LOT of details that are missing there, and that missing details suggest that the details of His creation are relatively unimportant, especially compared to the message of the first three chapters of Genesis.

There are several parts of those first three chapters that lead me to believe that they are more poetic allegory than literal history. I'll share just one sequence here. There is a male figure named "The Man". All the animals are assembled before him, I assume in both male and female forms. No suitable helper is found for him, so God decided to make him a female human counterpart named "Living". Has anyone heard of anyone believing that God was having an "open tryout" to find a good partner from the animal world before deciding that a female human would be a better fit? This does not read as something that should be taken literally.

Regarding the Exodus passages, I believe it is completely plausible that our week is symbolic of God's creation time, without the requirement that they both be of the exact same duration. If Genesis creation account is indeed allegorical, then the duration of a day in the account isn't important.

Kirk, I'm not sure where you have heard or read that most mutations are lethal, but that simply isn't the case. While many are indeed debilitating, a vast majority of mutations have no effect on the organism. The protein-coding regions in genomes make up a very small percentage and regulatory regions are not a whole lot more plentiful -- especially in "higher" eukaryotes like humans. Sorry if I'm sounding pedantic, but it's what I do for a living and hard to turn it off :-P Besides, it's important when presenting scientific arguments that the science is actually correct.

I've been in the audience for two talks from Doug Axe, and let's just say I didn't come away with a favorable opinion of his science or his attitude towards those that hold viewpoints different from his own. I have also corresponded with him via email and I would advise against putting too much stock in his book. Admittedly, I haven't read it, but I expect his book contents to resemble the two hours of lecture I have heard, and I am not making any plans to add it to a full reading list. Doug and I can agree that the wonders of creation suggest a Creator, but that is the extent of it. If you found particular arguments of his compelling, I would be happy to discuss them further.

Sure, I guess I was speaking of mutations that actually change a chromosome. And maybe that is too simplified for what I said. I want to research that again if you would kindly permit me to do so. No need to apologize for bringing your expertise to the conversation. It is important to do so, and thanks for that. I will agree that a lot of details are left out. That is God's business. The scriptures' purpose is to make us wise unto salvation. The potter doesn't owe the pots details about how and why. With regard to making the woman out of the man's ribs, that too demonstrates relationship. For one sex of the other to say the other is not necessary is foolishness. Please understand I am not directing these things at you but "thinking out loud" if you will. With regard to the "try out" to find a spouse, I believe God is demonstrating to Adam(the man) that all the other creatures which he has made by speaking his word are not for him. Then he makes the woman, not by merely speaking, but the Hebrew says that Eve was "built". Then the man say, "Whoa! This is now, bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman' for she was taken out of man." God's purpose is not to show us how he did it, (could we understand if he did) ro is he try to the man, and us that the woman is the suitable partner for man.

Did Mr. Axe present the statistical problems with evolution in his lecture? Did you find and error with that? I enjoyed his discussion about logic and reason helpful. The book also helped to make the general principle of evolution a topic that people could contemplate and apply to it common observations. I also thought his treatment was sincere in its desire to assist with understanding. I have seen similar statistical presentations on the improbability of evolution from other mathematicians. I also appreciated his treatment of organs and features being part of a system. For example, feather do not allow a bird to fly. Skeletal, circulatory, muscular, and respiratory considerations would have had to be in place for flight. Environmental pressures can not select for systems that are not complete.

I thank you for the discussion and your courtesy in considering my posts.

In order to regroup the discussion, I have a questions for cwh:

To what extent do you think God was involved in the creation of the universe?

To expound on the question, do you think that God had a relatively large part in guiding evolution/uniformitarianism, or did you think it went on largely (if not totally) without divine intervention or 'miracles.' Anymore clarifications will be gladly provided, as I do not intend for this to be an unfair question...

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all creatures in their vast array. He did so in 6 literal days as Genesis says.

JES,

This is not a prominent thought in TE, as I know it, but I believe God started with the creation of single-celled organisms, the “dust of the ground”.

Single-celled organisms are incredibly complex and a testament to His incredible power. Some could say this is an argument from incredulity, but scientists have been working on pre-biotic chemistry for decades with very little to show for it.

Retraction Watch put out a list of “top 10 retractions” for 2017 and amidst stories of individuals and journals that were forced to retract multiple articles at once, was the retraction Jack Szostak had to make. Szostak won a Nobel Prize earlier in his career working with telomeres, but has been working probably over a decade on pre-biotic Chemistry. He has been trying to generate self-replicating RNA molecules, but has made little progress. I haven’t followed his work closely enough to know the precise article that was retracted (I should probably do a little research), but an experiment was found to be not reproducible.

The bottom line for me is this - the fact that very little progress has been made in this area of research in about 70 years just may indicate that natural explanations for the origin of life may be insufficient.

Interesting information cwh! I may have to research that kind of retraction information as well.

If the criteria "non reproducible" is used, then the theories about evolution from from one ancient species to the other is not "provable". Those notions become speculation. We don't even find the intermediary forms.

I would encourage us to consider God's Word as it reads. The dust of the ground is just that, dust. From the dust you were taken and to dust you shall return. God does not say from little tiny beasts you were taken and to little tiny beasts you shall return. God did make little tiny beasts and plants, so small that we cannot see them except in a mass or in a microscope. These cellular beings have amazing systems that do complex work to cause these little creatures to live and reproduce. So much more, God says he constructed you and I. Man was formed, not just spoken into existence like the other creatures. God took counsel in the Trinity, "Let us make man in our own image." Then man was formed from the dust of the ground. Woman was "built" as the Hebrew verb translates. Man is indeed unique.

If in fact, God did not do what he says he has done, none of scripture is authoritative. I believe there is a God(big "G") who has made all and sustains all by his mighty power. As Proverbs 1:7 says, "The begining of wisdom is fear(awe and respect) of the Lord." Happy and blessed New Year to you all.

I could not agree more that "there is a God who has made all and sustains all by His mighty Power". I also completely agree with the sentiment of Proverbs 1:7. So let me go for the tri-fecta and join in agreement for the Lord's blessings to all in this coming New Year!

Kirk, Szostak's most recent retraction was in November 2017. Tivolo Olsen, who worked in Szostak's lab was unable to replicate an experiment that involved a short amino acid chain (peptide) enabling the self-replication of an RNA molecule. "The peptide in question did not appear to provide an environment that fostered RNA replication." (from Retraction Watch) Szostak was quoted as saying "In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings]…we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been (and as Tivoli was) in interpreting these experiments. Szostak and his co-authors requested the retraction. I'll try to find the article and read more.

Thanks for making that available to me and your take on it.

Here is a link to the article, if you are interested:

Actually, I made a tiny url for it -- https://tinyurl.com/yasjvlsu