Science in the Bible – Review, pt5

Eternal-productions.org have put forward 101 scientific facts that apparently existed in the Bible before science came along and “verified” these facts. After examining the first forty of these facts, we’ve had to chuck out 20 as simply not being any sort of scientific claim at all, while the remaining twenty represent misunderstandings, errors or claims that were not in any way unique to the Bible but existed as folklore in other cultures, as well. In Part Five, I tackle the so-called “facts” numbered 41 to 50.

41. Healthy dietary laws (Leviticus 11:9-12). Scripture states that we should avoid those sea creatures which do not have fins or scales. We now know that bottom-feeders (those with no scales or fins) tend to consume waste and are likely to carry disease.

Which isn’t what Levicitus 11 says, of course. Verse 12 states ‘Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you‘ – not just bottom-feeders, amd not just because of health risks, but also shrimps, crabs, oysters, mussels, frogs, lobsters, etc., etc. Moreover, fish is no more of a health risk than any other sea food. The 121 species of Puffer Fish (Tetraodontidae), which are all perfectly acceptable according the Levicitus dietary laws, are notoriously poisonous and will very easily kill you if not prepared correctly. Nevertheless, they are routinely eaten in east Asia. Another false fact.

42. The Bible warns against eating birds of prey (Leviticus 11:13-19). Scientists now recognize that those birds which eat carrion (putrefying flesh), often spread disease.

Science does not say, however, that one mustn’t eat them. Moreover, the list of birds cited in verses 13-19 contain birds that do not live off carrion (eg the Hoopoe, the Cormorant). Again, simply false.

43. Avoid swine (Deuteronomy 14:8). Not so long ago, science learned that eating undercooked pork causes an infection of parasites called trichinosis. Now consider this: the Bible forbid the eating of swine more than 3,000 years before we learned how to cook pork safely.

Consider this: people have been happily tucking into pork for thousands of years, while Deutronomy 14:8 forbids the eating of pigs generally because they does not chew cud, and therefore unclean. It says nothing about undercooking pork or the accompanying risks. Again, there are risks in undercooking any meat or poultry that is perfectly acceptable, according to Deutronomy and Levicitus. Again, the claim is false.

44. Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, God’s Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as “Mother” and naturalism is enshrined.

This is a non-scientific claim. It is also a decidely inaccurate claim – revered and enshrined by whom, precisely?

45. Black holes and dark matter anticipated (Matthew 25:30; Jude 1:13; Isaiah 50:3). Cosmologists now speculate that over 98% of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes. A black hole’s gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls “outer darkness” or “the blackness of darkness forever.”

The relevant passages, respectively, are:
And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
I clothe the sky with darkness and make sackcloth its covering
I’m confused as to how we get dark matter and black holes – very specific scientific concepts – from these passages, given the context in which they appear. Where is the sackcloth, precisely, of which Isaiah speaks? Where is the mention of that most of the Universe consists of Dark Matter? No meaningful scientific claim has been made.

46. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God – resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is “grow(ing) old like a garment” (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

This represents a scientific misunderstanding (at best) vis-a-vis evolution, and the return of an old friend – the selective use of scientific facts, without giving an explanation as the selection process or the rationale, particularly as the object of the exercise is simply to juxtapose a modern scientific claim next to the relevant Biblical text. Anyhow, evolution does not contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as it operates within an open system, deriving energy (ultimately) from the sun. Moreover, science does not claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics nor Entropy came about because of a rebellion against any particular deity, but rather it simply describes how the Universe in fact works. The claims made here are false.

47. Cain’s wife discovered (Genesis 5:4). Skeptics point out that Cain had no one to marry – therefore the Bible must be false. However, the Bible states plainly that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Cain married his sister.

Nothing to do with science here. That’ll be another off the list, then.

48. Incest laws established (Leviticus 18:6). To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common. Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice. The reason is simple – the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses’ day the genetic errors had swelled. Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed.

Other cultures also had their incest laws, of course – it’s hardly unique to the Bible. This is precisely the horror that lies in the non-Biblical story of Oedipus Rex, for example. Nevertheless, science does not claim that there was a time when it was possible for a brother to marry his sister or that the genetic pool was more “pure” than it is now, which appears to be the implication in the above comment. Moreover, it should be noted that Levicitus 18:6 merely forbids sex between close relations – it does not point to any scientific consequences for children born of such a union to do with genes, etc. It is precisely this why – from a scientific point of view (ie not a moral one) – why it’s not a good idea. One has to say that, in Levicitus 18:6, no scientific claim is being made.

49. Genetic mixing of different seeds forbidden (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). The Bible warns against mixing seeds – as this will result in an inferior or dangerous crop. There is now growing evidence that unnatural, genetically engineered crops may be harmful.

In their injunctions against planting two types of seed in the same field, the Leviticus and Deuteronomy passages appear to warn against the dangers of hybridisation rather than “genetic engineering” per se. Nevertheless, it goes without saying, that hybrid crops of one sort or another have been eaten safely for centuries, and that there is no evidence that genetically modified and genetically engineered crops are harmful to humans purely because they are engineered or modified. The claim is false.

50. Hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Jeremiah 10:13; Amos 9:6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God “draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man” (Job 36:27-28). The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.

This is a first. After 49 so-called “facts”, the Job verses cited do appear – at first glance – to describe the the hydrological cycle (the other three verses simply do not). It may even be that such an account existed nowhere else in the world at the time – I’d need to do further research to establish that. But there is one glaring difference between the account in Job and modern meterology. The view today is that the hydrological cycle is a purely natural phenomenon. Job suggests that God actively intervenes in the process. This a critical point, of course – science has repeatedly shown us how things happen which previously humanity had ascribed to a deity or some other supernatural being. Not so. When Job (38:29) asks: ‘Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds, how he thunders from his pavilion?‘, we can assert “us” – we now understand such things, or have the intellectual tools that will enable us to understand. And God, it has to be said, is notoriously absent from any scientific explanation to date – including the hydrological cycle. The claim is false.

After fifty “facts”: Science: 26 – the Bible: 0. 24 disqualifications.

Coming up soon: Part 6, in which we’ll examine claims 51 to 60.

Science in the Bible – Review, pt4

Part 4 of ten in an examination of 101 so-called scientific claims made by the Bible long before scientific discovery.

After looking at the first thirty, we’ve dismissed seventeen these as simply not being scientific claims at all, and we’ve yet to find any claim that science actually makes that is to be found either in the Bible, or that is unique to the Bible. Further, we’ve found an odd anomaly. It appears that there are some scientific claims that contradict the Bible, and the Bible is held to be correct and the science false. It is not clear, firstly, what the process was to decide between the competing claims between the Bible and science. Secondly, it’s not clear on which grounds it is decided to reject some scientific claims but not others. And thirdly, it’s not clear how such Biblical claims can be made, as the purpose of compiling the 101 “facts” was apparently to reveal scientific claims that pre-existed in the Bible, rather than contradictions between a Biblical interpretation and scientific claims. I can only conclude an ulterior motive or hidden agenda: a conclusion strengthened by the observation that the only scientific claims rejected are those for evolution.

Nevertheless, this post now examines the “facts” numbered 31-40.

31. The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

Geologists speculate that there was more than one super continent: Rodinia was formed 1.3 giga years ago (gya), and is different from, say, Panagea, the most recent, which as was around 250 million years ago. The claim that there was just a single super continent created by God is not one that is made by scientists. The claim is false.

32. Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the “fountains of the great deep were broken up.” This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

Genesis 7:11 says: ‘In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.’ Scientists certainly do not claim that a large flood broke up any of the super continents, but rather it was due to the processes of plate tectonics and continental drift – neither of which is explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Needless to add, no human – Noah or otherwise – was around to at the time of any of the super-continents. The claim here blatantly false.

33. Ice Age inferred (Job 38:29-30). Prior to the global Flood the earth was apparently subtropical. However shortly after the Flood, the Bible mentions ice often – “By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen” (Job 37:10). Evidently the Ice Age occurred in the centuries following the Flood.

‘From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen?‘.
It is only an inference that can probably only be made with other scientific ideas about ice ages. It says nothing about any ice age specifically (there have been many) or what that actually means – it merely refers to the existence of ice as a weather phenomenon. Either way, Ice Ages or not, the suggestion appears to be that God makes the ice – something which science certainly does not claim, so this claim is false.

34. Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

This is not exactly correct. There are very obvious biological differences between (for example) a one day old zygote and myself as a human being, or indeed an unborn child, such that to describe a zygote as anything funamentally more than a single fertilised cell is to misunderstand what it actually is, or to belittle what we commonly understand as making us “human”. We may of course use the word human as an adjective to describe a particular zygote, or foetus, to distinguish it from the zygotes and foetuses of other animals. This distinction has no bearing on the morality of abortion, to which is also alluded, and about which science makes no claims. No scientific claim as such is being tested against the Bible.

35. God fashions and knits us together in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15). Science was ignorant concerning embryonic development until recently. Yet many centuries ago, the Bible accurately described God making us an “intricate unity” in the womb.

Science was ignorant until recently because science itself is fairly recent. Nevertheless, no scientific claim has been advanced here: one of the few things that every pre-modern and contemporary culture knows is that babies come from a woman’s womb, while no scientific theory today invokes a god fashioning or knitting anything. No claim here, then.

36. DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139 – “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”

DNA is not a digital code, nor is it written in any meaningful sense of the word. Furthermore, the book which is referred to in Psalm 139 is not some sort of book within the human body, but something which apparently belongs to God: Psalm 139:16: ‘your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be‘ (although note the problems of translation). It is simply to read too much into the text to say that it suggests the existence of DNA. It does not, and the claim is false.

37. God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Science does not identify an “Adam” in the Biblical sense of the word, and does not say that there was anyone like “Adam” who was created by a God, of course…. but the logic of evolution is certainly does accord with the idea of humanity ultimately have common ancestors in Africa, a suggestion put forward in a number of Creation stories – not just the Biblical one. Hence, we find that the Bible on this occasion is at best not making a unique claim.

38. Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Another misrepresentation of science – evolution deals in biology, not linguistics. Linguistics, however, does offer mechanisms to explain the origins of linguistic diversity, while palaepanthropoligists – the scientists alluded to above as theorising a common ancestry for all of humanity – also provide theories of migration that would account for linguistic diversity. None of the speak about any rebellion, so it’s simply a false claim.

39. Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

No, Genesis doesn’t alone offer a reasonable answer to the origin of races and languages – science does a pretty good job, too. Again, one could cite the reasonable theories of palaeoanthropology. Many – including a number of Christians – would go so far as to say that science offers the only reasonsable answer, based upon logic, evidence and testable hypotheses. Nevertheless, no scientific claim has been advanced here, so that’s another off the list…

40. God has given us the leaves of the trees as medicine (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:2). Ancient cultures utilized many herbal remedies. Today, modern medicine has rediscovered what the Bible has said all along – there are healing compounds found in plants.

Yes, ancient cultures used herbal remedies. Therefore, not a claim unique to the Bible.

Another ten “facts” examined, with five false portrayals of what science actually says, three “non-claims”, bringing the total number of “scientific facts” down from 101 to 81, and two claims that are not unique to the Bible.

Science in the Bible – Review, pt3

So far, in our examination of the 101 Scientific Facts that were already in the Bible before modern science got round to discovering them, we’ve covered the first 20. And we’re not doing that well at all. We’ve found instances of factually incorrect statements, either about what science actually says, or statements that contradict science outright. We’ve also lost 10 of these so-called “facts” as they do not claims made by science at all, and therefore cannot be said to prefigure anything science says. Further, we’ve also uncovered evidence of selectively using some of what science says, and rejecting other things – namely, evolution. It is not clear on what basis, as the idea is to take something that science says, and show that it was already written in the Bible.

Now, keeping in mind all of the above, we take numbers 21 to 30, in the hope of finding anything at all that resembles science.

21. Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

This passage has been translated different ways: the New International Readers version asks where lightning comes from, while the New International Version asks where is ‘lightning dispersed‘. The New American Standard Bible asks where light is ‘divided’, while the English Standard Version asks the way to where ‘light distributed‘, and so on. It’s not clear whether we’re talking about lightning or light, and no version, however, suggests that white light itself can be divided into other colours, which would be a necessary statement, as that is what Newton claim. He did not simply claim that it could be divided. The full scientific claim has not been made in the Bible, then.

22. Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Nothing in the verse suggests oceanic currents as we understand them today: a “path” doesn’t imply a current any more than a “shipping lane” today implies a current. No scientific claim, then.

23. Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that “he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body,” and that those who commit homosexual sin would “receive in themselves” the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

No scientist claims that sex outside “holy matrimony” is the thing that makes it unsafe, or that homosexuality is itself harmful. No current scientific claim is put forward here. Again.

24. Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning God made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.

A factual error – evolution does explain this. The point of the clitoris (not mentioned in the Bible) is a bit of mystery…. Maybe God is female…? Again, though, no scientific claim has been shown to exist in the Bible. Another “fact” off the list. 89 left.

25. Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

26. The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

These two can be treated together. It would be far more convincing if there had been a ball park figure in the Bible, such as the one cited (which is in fact the very rough estimation that astronomers do in fact claim – it didn’t come from the Bible, though). Otehrwise, we appear to be left with the claim in the Bible that there are lots of stars – a claim that could be made by any mere mortal 3,000 years ago, and which doesn’t actually tell us anything significant or even why a large, finite, number of stars is significant. Moreover, the claim that there are a lot of stars out there, but which theoretically can be counted, is not a claim unique to the Bible.

27. The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.

A mis-reading of their own “holy” scripture. A comparison is when object A is compared with object B. In the case of the verses cited, what’s being compared is not the number of stars with grains of sand, but the descendents of Abraham with both the number of stars and the grains of sand. (‘And so from this one man [Abraham], and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.’ Heb 11:12).

The juxtaposition of sand and stars is interesting, and maybe it is this that gave rise to the astronomical analogy in the first place. No Claim Here.

28. Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

I’d put down to the growth of railways, not the theory of evolution*, but the scientific claim, based on observable evidence, and prefigured in a Biblical verse is… where, precisely? No scientific claim, then.

*The point (taking the fatuous claims made here at face value) is that two random events that coincide in time may not actually be connected.

29. The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

The rule – their rule – is simple: pick the scientific claim, find it in the Bible, and bingo! Your point is made. But, no, we’re still apparently in Not Science Land, and were down to a possible 85 – not 101 – “facts”.

30. Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

Nothing in Genesis 7 suggests the existence of fossils – it just talks about a flood killing a lot of animals. Moreover, to date, there is no evidence for a global flood in the geological record. No scientific claim has been made here, either, and in fact a scientific error has been committed.

Again, no unequviocal scientific claim could be found amongst facts 21-30, and we’ve had more casualties: of the original 101 “facts”, we can cross off 17 as simply not advancing any claim at all, much less one mentioned in the Bible.

Science in the Bible – Review, pt2

Part two, then, of the review of the startling revelation that there are 101 scientific facts that were in the Bible long before modern science got round to rediscovering them. Startling, that is, if it were true. After the first ten, so far, we’re 0/9, with one claim discarded as not being a claim made by science at all.

11. Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

Oh, dear, that was a very bad start.

John 15:13 says ‘Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends‘, while Romans 5: 7-8 says: ‘Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’

These might be examples of noble behaviour, but it doesn’t offer us a scientific explanation of anything, nor can it be described as a fact that has subsequently been “rediscovered” by science.

This is simply an opportunistic sleight at the theory of evolution. However, Darwin used the concept of natural selection (subsequently dubbed “the survival of the fittest”) to explain variety in life and the origins of variation and variety, hence, the origin of species. His theory of evolution has little or no interest in theories concerning alturism in human society per se.

Anyway, it’s not science, so we’re down to alleged 95 facts in total, and not 101.

12. Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

No I’m getting confused. I thought we’re supposed to be finding the claims of science prefigured within the Bible? Evolution does offer a solution for this dilemma – and it isn’t to be found in the Bible.

But it’s another “fact” that science doesn’t make in a list that’s supposed to be of scientific facts and claims that we can find in the Bible. So we’re down 94 of the feted 101. Hence, an invalid claim not science.

13. Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

This project is now simply being seriously derailed. There are no scientific claims for DNA and RNA being ‘created’ together, and in fact evolution suggests that it is not the ‘ONLY’ explanation at all. This cannot considered to be a claim that can be prefigured in the Bible. And we’re down to 93. Not science.

14. Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

We’ll take this statement at face value, and allow that there is agreement here between the Genesis and science. However, it is hardly a unique claim to Genesis: the story itself derives from older Middle Eastern stories, while the Ancient Greeks (with Promotheus on clay-moulding duty and Athena taking care of blowing life, as recorded by the 8th BCE poet Hesiod) and the Ancient Chinese (with Nu Gua Shi) had similar stories of man being made from dust/soil/mud and life being blown into them. So no unique scientific insight there, then.

15. The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis.

Genesis 2:1-2 says: ‘1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work’.

Now, I personally can’t get anything useful about matter or energy from that, but the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is concerned with the total amount of energy in the universe – not matter. But because of the famous E=MC-squared formula in Special Relativity, that would imply that matter is constant, as well as energy. It took Einstein to link matter and energy – not the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Nevertheless, if the suggestion is that simply because God created the world, therefore the 1st Law of Thermodynamics can be seen to be embodied, then I don’t see how that can possibly be unique to the Bible, not least because the Biblical Creation myths derive from older Babylonian myths. At best, no unique scientific insight.

16. The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

This is to play fast an loose with what science says on the one hand, and what the Bible says on the other.

To begin with, physics tends to describe the Universe in terms of mathematics and universal laws, which describes the behaviour of things like energy, space, time and matter – and other important things, such as forces (the weak and strong forces, gravity, and electromagnetism). Moreover, the ‘observable evidence’ suggests that time and space are intimately linked, as are energy and matter – as per Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity. This is not what’s hinted at here, which rather is a rather more mundane sequence of events: first time was created, then space, then matter, then energy. Science actually says that time and space, along with matter and energy, were all present, simultaneously, from the first split-seconds of the birth of the Universe. Further, the description includes something called ‘God’ doing the creating, an entity that does not exist in any scientific veiw of the origins of the Universe. In fact, the verses simply do not reflect any scientific view about things such as space or time or energy or matter, but are merely descriptive of “what’s there” than how it works.

It’s impossible to see these anything in Genesis 1:1-3 as offering support of Einstein over Newton, and I’m not sure that biologists (for example) would agree that the four concepts of space, time, matter and energy really does represent ‘all aspects of the creation’.

We conclude that the cited verses simply DOES NOT reflect any scientific view, and that Genesis does not prefigure anything that science says in modern times.

We can further question whether the Biblical authors actually thinking of the modern scientific concepts of “space” when they wrote “heavens”, and “matter” when they wrote “earth”? “Energy” when they wrote “light”, And “time” when they wrote “in the beginning”? That sounds extremely unlikely. Moreover, Genesis 1:20-26 contains scientific contradictions: historically, livestock, for example, did not come before humanity; evolution tells us that there was a sequence of emerging species, and that fish, for example, did not appear at the same time as birds.

In lieu of obvious support of any particular scientific claim, one has to say that there is no scientific claim being made, and we’ve

17. The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

There are many creation stories which do suggest that the Universe had a beginning. Whether the Universe had a beginning as we understand it is a complicated, debateable point within cosmology itself, becuase the actual moment of the Big Bang is yet to be fully understood (Stephen Hawking, for example, suggests not – and that it is not eternal, either).

The crucial point is that one does not gain any further elucidation from the two cited versus on the mechanism of how the Universe began – saying simply that it did begin is not really explaining anything in a scientific manner, much less citing the ‘observable evidence’ which ‘true science’ relies upon.

At best, because the universe having a beginning is reflected in may cultures, we can only at best conclude that the Bible has no unique scientific insight on this occasion.

18. The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

A common myth. In fact, there is no evidence that anyone actually thought the earth to be flat in the last 2,500 years. Pythagoras put forward the idea in the 6th century BCE, for example, that the earth was spherical. It’s also not technically correct to say that the earth is spherical at all – the earth is in fact an oblate ellipsoid. The Biblical passage represents widespread understanding, and therefore offers no unique scientific insight.

19. Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.

A long since widely understood phenomena, and not a unique scientific insight.

20. Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, God set His rainbow “in the cloud” as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets – which act as a prism – separating white light into its color spectrum.

Meterologists – as indeed any scientist – would believe that the physical laws regarding water has not changed here on earth, and that rainbows have existed on earth as long as the was sun, rain, and an earth, with or without humanity around, so the point about the environment being different seems odd in this context (Cf Genesis 2:5-6). No scientific view holds that rainbows are the result of a deity’s ‘covenant’ with humanity and promise not to flood the earth (Genesis 9:13-16). No statement about the prism of light appears in these verses; indeed, the sun is not even mentioned within that context. Consequently, the assertions in the cited verses either do not reflect scientific understanding, as per the stated aims of the list of facts, or are simply not science.

So after 20 “facts” of the original 101, we’ve lost another five as simply not being scientific facts in the Bible and subsequently rediscovered by modern science, meaning we’re down to 91.

A further five “facts” are seen not to be unique to the Bible.

We also seem to be witnessing a selection process that was not indicated at the beginning. In particular, there seems to be a sorting of “scientific facts” (however ineptly or crudely put) that agree with the Bible, for example over Space and Time, and a simple denial of other scientific facts, for example, anything that possibly relates to evolution. Indeed, Biblical intpretations that appear to contradict scientific knowledge is simply hailed as having the correct insight into how things really work.

Science in the Bible – Review, pt1

Eternal Productions is the latest organisation to bring a DMCA against the YouTube user, ExtantDodo. This is an occupational hazard for this user in particular, but also others on YouTube, who have suddenly found that Creationists do not appear to be that tolerant of criticism, and will misuse legal instruments – such as DMCAs – by (falsely) claiming copyright infringement. All it acheives is an account suspension until the wheels of bureacracy turn to put things right, because their case is groundless. So ExtantDodo will be back in business soon.

Anyhow, to take up a little of the slack that’s left given their otherwise superb demolition job on the dodgy science presented by such groups as Eternal Production, and after coming across the surprising revelation that there are 101 scientific discoveries that were foretold in the Bible, I thought this deserves further review and testing.

What we are looking for, then, must surely be clear, unique scientific insights found only in the Bible, before “rediscovery” by modern science. It would be nice to find something like “And God created the Universe, and found that it was good, and found that the total amount of energy contained within is always the same” (now known as the Law of Conservation of Energy). Let’s see how we do.

Numbers 1 through to 10.

1. The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing”.

The passage in Job doesn’t say anything about the earth being affected by gravity. It simply says that the earth floats in nothing. The Book of Job is thought to have been written around the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, after other cultures had (eg the Ancient Egyptians) had figured out that the earth was floating around in space. So the Bible is not unique in making this claim. Meanwhile, the next verse (26:8) goes onto say: ‘He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight‘, which is quite the reverse of what we know to happen: clouds do burst under the weight of water, due to the gravity not mentioned in Job 26:7. It’s how rain works. No unique scientific insight, plus at least one scientific mistake.

2. Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Hmm. There’s no mention of particles in (for example) the New International Version (‘what is seen was not made out of what was visible’) or the King James Version (‘things which are seen were not made of things which do appear’). Nevertheless, the idea of tiny, invisible “atoms” had been put forward by the Ancient Greeks, four hundred or so years before the letter to the Hebrews was first penned, most famously by Democritus, of course. And nowadays, we would very pointedly not talk of particles of the Standard Model as making up the Universe, (or “Creation”), but little tiny “strings” (for want of a better word), as per string theory. No unique scientific insight.

3. The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

This is rubbish. Asides from the fact that this appears to be plucked out of thin air, God unfortunately didn’t make it clear that that there were ideal dimensions at all: he just told Noah the sizes and to get on with it. As it happens, lots of factors affect a boats stability, over and above dimension, for which there is no ideal, as this would depend on vessel type and planned usage. (Eg, see Understanding Boat Design (1993), Edward S. Brewer). But for comparison, neither the QEII, the USS Missouri, nor the Bismarck embodied this particular feature. This is not science and we have to cross this off our list of 101 “scientific facts”.

4. When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

Leviticus Chapter 15 does emphasise washing. It is summarised in the last verse (verse 32), which states that: ‘These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who lies with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.’ Verse 16 continues noticeably unscientifically thus: ‘ ” ‘When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.’

To me, this demonstrates a lack of scientific understanding about semen, while the scientific basis for waiting until specifically the evening following washing before one can declare a state of cleaniness is not clear at all. It demonstrates ignorance rather than insight, coupled with a natural desire to clean when feeling unclean. Hardly unique to the Bible, and something practised frequently independently – if later – in the Roman world as well, for example. Half a point a there I think, but again no unique scientific insight, plus evidence of unscientific thinking.

5. Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

The passage relates to a camp at a war, and of course, “isolating” human waste was practised long before WWI. It’s not clear whether this regulation came about because of scientific understanding of disease (based upon observation, for example) or fear of any kind of bodily discharge, but the result is undoubtedly makes scientific sense. Nevertheless, it’s not clear to me that this unique to ancient Hebrew culture – the Ancient Egyptians were equally fastidious about hygiene, for example. Unresolved.

6. Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the “springs of the sea.” Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

The New Living Translation (“Have you explored the springs from which the seas come?”) indicates that the seas derive from springs, not that they are within the ocean. Otherwise, the American Standard Version, the King James Version and the New International Version (for example) merely speaks of ’springs of the sea’, not the springs in the sea. This is not science, and again we have to cross it off our list, so we’re down to 99 “facts”.

7. There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

It’s possible to argue a slightly different reading, but even giving the benefit of the doubt, this is not science so much as deep sea exploration. After all, there is no explanation offered as to why there should be mountains beneath the sea, unlike today, where the discovery of such underwater mountains fits into geological theory. Not science, then – 98 “facts”.

8. Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator’s presence – “in Your presence is fullness of joy” (Psalm 16:11).

Oh, dear. The theory of evolution is not principally a theory of human emotion, but a theory explaining naturally occuring variation within living organisms. Psychology and neurology might be better places to start. Moreover, saying that “God does it” is hardly a scientific insight, much less a theory. Not science. 97.

9. Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

One of the principle ideas behind bloodletting was that it purified the blood, or removed excess blood; it is not prohibited in the passage cited, unlike the eating of blood, which is (Lev. 17:14). This is scientifically unsound, and people all over the world enjoy eating blood products, such as black pudding (UK) and blood rice cakes (China and Taiwan) and no doubt elsewhere. Moreover, other cultures (Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Chinese) recognised the importance of blood to life. No unique scientific insight, plus scientifcally unsound advice.

10. The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.

Nice try, but I thought this list was supposed to show a list of facts that appeared in the Bible and subsequently verified by science? Creation is not a claim that science makes, so we’ll cross this one off, so now we’re down to 96 “facts”.

Anyhow, on the one hand, evolution does not state that one species will turn into another – a cat will not turn into a dog. On the other hand, there is an exceptionally large amount of evidence that supports the idea that species have evolved from ancestor species, eg whales from formerly land-based mammals, land-based mammals from sea-based animals, etc., and evolution has in fact been witnessed. That’s what science actually claims, and it’s a claim accepted by a large number of Christians and theologians, as it happens. Not science.

So, of the first ten “facts”, five are invalid as scientific insights into the way the world works, as suggested by science; one is (at best) unresolved; and four “insights” are found not to be unique to the Bible. There were two or three scientific inaccuracies or misunderstandings alongside passages cited, so overall, we’re running at a deficit if anything…

Another ten to follow soon.