Science in the Bible – Review, pt7

Part 7 in this Review looks at the claims numbered 61 to 70 of 101 scientific “facts” that are said to have been prefigured in the Bible. So far, we’ve found that 29 of the first 60 are claims that have turned out to be false, while in 31 cases, no scientific claim as such was being made.

61. Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

More precisely, in Lev. 13.45, God commands that ‘The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of his face and cry out, “Unclean! Unclean!”‘

But some sort of understanding of quarantine does appear in verse 46, and in the Num. 5:1-5. There my be natural reasons as to how a society stumbles upon the idea of quarantine. But it takes science to explain why and how it works – there is little scientific value of such an injunction, without explanation: it simply says do it because God commanded it. Indeed, a scientific truth is not described here, but rather a pattern of behaviour that – with the benefit of science and hindsight – we might understand better.

Moreover, there are a whole host of injunctions in Numbers and Levicitus that are not adhered to by otherwise Bible-believing Christians for whatever reason (because Jesus established a new covenant, etc., etc. And, again, see Lev.13:45!), so one is forced to conclude that it is only in the light of science, actually, that we can only now see the value of those particular verses rather than others.

There is no scientific claim that’s being tested here, in fact – just a scientific explanantion for prescribed behaviour.

62. Each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). Centuries before the advent of the telescope, the Bible declared what only God and the angels knew – each star varies in size and intensity!

Which is not what this verse says. It depends on the translation, but it’s usually translated as saying that the sun, moon and stars differ in “splendour” or “glory” – not that the stars themseleves differ in “size” and “intensity”, and which cannot reasonably be read into “glory” or “splendour”.

Not a scientific claim, then, that’s been proposed as having a counterpart in the Bible.

63. The Bible says that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech (Job 38:35). We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing – electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light. Today, using radio transmitters, we can send “lightnings” which indeed speak when they arrive.

Radio waves are not a form of light – light waves have a different frequency to radio waves, but both are electromagnetic waves that utilise photons. The verse talks of lightning bolts – that is, electricity – “reporting” to God; not light generally, and it does not directly say that lightwaves can be used to send speech. Further, it does not represent scientific understanding to see “lightnings” as some sort of radio wave transmission.

If any book of the Bible can be taken literally, it is NOT the book of Job: even other Creationists recognise this. The (Young Earth) Creationist web site, Answers in Genesis, frequently linked to in by Eternal Productions, says that the claim “There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible” should NOT be used by Creationists and that ‘We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages if the original readers would not have seen it‘, and that the claim “There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible”. In particular, this ‘applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms.’

No scientific claim is being tested here.

64. Laughter promotes physical healing (Proverbs 17:22). Recent studies confirm what King Solomon was inspired to write 3,000 years ago, “A merry heart does good, like medicine.” For instance, laughter reduces levels of certain stress hormones. This brings balance to the immune system, which helps your body fight off disease.

The verse says nothing about the medical effects of laughter – as noted, it merely says that laughing is “good”, presumably because after a good laugh, like taking medicine, you feel better. It’s taken real science to discover things such as the hormones and immune system cited, however.

No scientific claim is being tested; only a scientific explanation offered.

65. Intense sorrow or stress is harmful to your health (Proverbs 18:14; Mark 14:34). Researchers have studied individuals with no prior medical problems who showed symptoms of stress cardiomyopathy including chest pain, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, and even heart failure – following a stressful incident.

None of which is indicated in either of these passages. There is little or no scientific insight in Proverbs 18:14 (for example): ‘A man’s spirit sustains him in sickness, but a crushed spirit who can bear?‘ It is mere poetry. The claim is false.

66. Microorganisms anticipated (Exodus 22:31). The Bible warns “Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 22:8). Today we understand that a decaying carcass is full of disease causing germs.

The claim here is again simply false: no one can read the existence of microbes in ‘”You are to be my holy people. So do not eat the meat of an animal torn by wild beasts; throw it to the dogs.’ (Exodus 22:31). This could, to all intents and purposes, be part of the fetish for clean and unclean habits that charactises the latter four books of the Pentateuch, and condemns shellfish as ‘unclean’.

67. The Bible cautions against consuming fat (Leviticus 7:23). Only in recent decades has the medical community determined that fat clogs arteries and contributes to heart disease.

The Bible does not ‘caution’ here – it positively demands that fat from goats, sheep and cattle should not be eaten. Duck, chicken and goose fat however – no problem… (Cf. Lev 11:13-19). The claim is false.

68. Do not consume blood (Leviticus 17:12). A common ritual in many religions in the ancient world was to drink blood. However, the Creator repeatedly told His people to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Acts 15:20; 21:25). Of course, modern science reveals that consuming raw blood is dangerous.

The passages cited refers to the consumption of blood generally, or to the eating of blood – previous religious practices are not mentioned, and there is no reason to believe that it is these that are being refered to. Further, in Part 1, we noted that eating blood was a widespread and scientifically safe thing to do. Hence, this is a false claim at best.

69.The Bible describes dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24). In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning “terrible lizard,” after discovering large reptilian-like fossils. However in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron. This is an accurate description of sauropods – the largest known dinosaur family.

Scientifically inaccurate because science tells us that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and that humanity is c.150,000-200,000 years old: the verse implies the behemoth is among humans. So the claim is false.

Further, scholarly consensus has it that the book of Job is thought to be not much more than 2,600 years old, and that the Behemoth may refer to a hippotamus or elephant. One of difficulties of the verses in question is that, rather than being accurate of anything, it is in fact too vague to say what it is – dinosaur or otherwise: a strong, large, animal that feeds on grass and has a penchant for hiding in water among reeds isn’t much to go on.

70. Pleasure explained (Psalm 36:8). Evolution cannot explain pleasure – even the most complex chemicals do not experience bliss. However, the Bible states that God “gives us richly all things to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17). Pleasure is a gift from God.

Evolution cannot explain pleasure as it does not deal with how experiences feel, but rather living animals and the appearance of species. No scientific claim is being examined here.

After examining 70 “facts” from the Bible, we’ve found 0 scientific claims in the Bible, 34 false claims, and 36 non-scientific claims. 31 more to go!

Atheism and the Archbishop

In 2004, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave a lecture in which he began with an examination of “atheism”. It is his conception of what “atheism” is that is at issue. At one level, the analysis of atheism by Williams is insightful. He identifies two distinctive strands of modern atheism:

1) Protest atheism, characterised as a moral repugnance at the concept of an all-loving God who allows evil to exist in the world, or repugnance at the vindictive Old Testament tyrant (the name Dawkins springs to mind here).

2) The atheism that views religion as some sort of force for social control, as in Marxism. Here, religion is seen as diverting attention from an imagined “real” state of affairs.

Williams is identifies what might be seen as a sub-division of the first definition, one that says, without any empirical evidence, there is no justification for belief in a God. Stemming from the philosophical school of logical positivism, the intellect is merely consigned to checking that which can be checked, and dismissing all else as ‘emotive noise’.

Taken together, these three elements do give us an insight into atheist thinking – but I’m not sure that he has captured what it means to be an atheist entirely.

To take issue with the way in which he deals with what he sees as the minor strand in modern atheism, firstly. It is depicted as an apparently inexplicable “left-over” from the logical positivist project, when the system itself ‘no longer has much credibility’. Whether or not this account of the origin of this form of atheism is correct, the fact that the logical postivist school of thought lack credibility is in no way detrimental to the insight either proffered by positivism, or supported by positivism – that if there is no empirical evidence, no rational reason for believing in God, then there is equally no rational reaon for doing so. That seems to me the basis of any rational enquiry, and the conclusion one is forced to draw is critical to a significant point that the Archbishop appears to have missed.

For if the existence of God is not subject to empirical study and rational enquiry, and logic and evidence cannot be meaningfully deployed on either of the debate, then belief in God becomes a matter of faith. And at that point, a distinctive, third-type of atheism emerges: the one who simply lacks the faith in any particular version of God brought to his/her attention.

As it falls outside of that realm of rational debate, no reason is necessary or required to justify a lack of faith. When I say that it falls outside of the scope of rational debate, I mean to say that faith is non-rational, rather than irrational – the latter implying a belief – or action – that is utterly inexplicable or contrary to reason. When I say it is non-rational, it is not to preclude sincerely felt intuitions or reasons that may be offered to justify, either the act of faith, or indeed non-faith. But the argument as to whether god exists is ultimately not one that can be settled by rational discourse.

This is a key point, because a number of people of faith tend to believe that there should be reasons for not believing in their particular brand of God, and that these should be produced. I cannot emphasise how erroneous such a contention is. Non-belief does not require any more rational justification than the simple observation this simple observation – that belief in a deity is a matter of personal faith, and personal faith alone. That may not be a satisfactory response for the believer, but the problem lies with the person of faith, not the non-believer. The history of human intellectual endeavours overwhelmingly supports the contention that it belief in anything beyond that which can be rationally proven or reasonably hypothesised (in therefore falsified) is simply not an obligation or necessary to function in society. Three hundred years of modern science is testimony to that.

The idea that a belief in God is a matter of faith, and that non-belief simply arises from a lack of faith, should not come as any surprise. Yet it continually astounds me how quickly it is overlooked. The Archbishop appears to have done so. I’ve heard Christian fundamentalists (in the UK) base their key argument on this simple misunderstanding: humanity (‘mankind’ as they invariably call it) is in rebellion against God through choice – choosing to ignore the Word of God or Jesus, or whatever. The act of choosing is one that assumes a rational can in fact be made – although doesn’t guarantee this as an outcome, of course. Choosing between to Coke and Pepsi assumes that it is possible to do so; and that at least requires that both Coke and Pepsi actually exist. But in the case of God, we’ve already said that it’s an act of faith to believe he exists. The “choice framework” collapses, and it simply becomes a matter of faith or non-faith.

The Archbishop goes on that: ‘In the background is the pervasive assumption of modernity that the intellectual default position is non-religious; but what this fails to see is that non-religiousness is historically and culturally a complex of refusals directed at specific religious doctrines, rather than a pure and primitive vision invaded by religious fictions.’ This is indeed how non-belief has manifested itself in the past. Historically, non-believers – those who thought about such things at any length – were in a minority, dominated by a culture of believers. They were therefore forced to justify their lack of faith, and their ‘refusals directed at specific doctrines’ can, and perhaps should, be seen as coming from a lack of faith in the first place on top of a cultural demand that they should justify themselves. It has little or nothing to do with the ‘assumption of modernity’, which is simply the observation that if one were to grow up in a society without religion, one would not have any specific religious views: Christian or Islamic or Hindu, etc. This assumption recognises the culturally specific nature of religious beliefs, in that respect.

On a final point, Williams observes that atheism should not be seen as a system of belief, to be taught alongside religions in RE lessons in (UK) schools. (Humanism, also mentioned by Williams, is a different case, beyond this post). In this, I agree with him, but for a different reason: a simple rejection of a faith-based belief does not constitute a belief system. Oddly, this is likewise a point that trips up many a believer.

Science in the Bible – Review, pt6

So to Part 6, then, in our quest to examine one-by-one the 101 scientific facts to be found in the Bible. We’re half way through, and unfortunately for the people at Eternal Productions – a Creationist outfit – things don’t seem to be going that well: we’ve had 24 disqualifications, and goalposts that appear to move as to which bits of science is acceptable (see posts passim).

So, 51-60.

51. The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity – the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit – just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!

Which scientists, I wonder, did the scoffing? Modern science is at best three hundred-odd years old, and Galileo – a pioneer of the scientific methodology – suffered for his scientific conclusions at the hands of religious authorities – not scientific authorities – and it was they if anyone who did the “scoffing”.

The sun takes one galactic year to make one complete orbit. That’s 220 million years, roughly. Whereas the impression one gets from verses 4 to 6 of Psalm 19 is distinctly earth-bound: “Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. In them he has set a tent for the sun. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.” [My emphasis]. It takes an awful lot of imagination to read anything useful about a galactic year here.

Moreover, if these verses actually refers to the galactic year, one wonders whatever Pope Paul V was worried about regarding Gallileo’s defence of the heliocentric view of solar system. On balance, we have to say that the claim here is false – the Bible does not say anything about a galactic year, as understood by modern science.

52. Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Presumably by trial and error – they kept cutting the penises of newborns, and found that the blood clotted quicker after eight days. Prothrombin does reach a peak after eight days from the time of birth, which does aid blood clotting – that’s the science. But nowhere in Genesis, Levicitus or Luke is this offered as the reason; rather, it’s simply stated as an injunction from God to cut off a male child’s foreskin at eight years old. Scientific claims, remember, explain something about the world around us. An instruction from a deity does no such thing, and consequently does not advance human knowledge at all. It is false to claim that there is any science, or any indication of any scientific understanding in these verses; nothing about blood clotting, for example.

53. God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.

The verse asks simply ‘Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand [...]?‘. It says nothing about having enough water to sustain life.

The claim advanced here makes little or no sense – science has not set a specific volume of water that is critical for ‘life as we know it’ (whatever that means) to be supported. No theory or fact has been obviously referred to, so I can only conclude that it is not a scientific claim that has been tested here.

54. The earth was designed for biological life (Isaiah 45:18). Scientists have discovered that the most fundamental characteristics of our earth and cosmos are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn’t exist. This is called the Anthropic Principle and it agrees with the Bible which states that God formed the earth to be inhabited.

Inhabited by what, though? For three gigayears of earth’s 4.5 gigayear history, microrganisms were the only living thing. Humanity – Homo sapien sapiens – has only been around for 200,000 years. A blink of the proverbial eyelid.

The temptation is to move onto the tired arguments about “fine tuning” and the “Anthropic Principle”, which are as discredited as the original Argument from Design is (but for a recent, robust, refutation of these variants, see Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion).

However, this would be a mistake: we need to focus on the job at hand, which is 1) examine the scientific claim and 2) examine the claim made for the Bible to see if the two match.

To begin with, no ‘fundamental characteristics’ are actually cited. But it is a truism to say that if the environment on earth was ‘different’ in some way (how much different?), then life well may be different, or may not even exist. But, however banal it is, one has to concede that this a claim that science would agree with. However, science does not say anything at all about God creating the universe, and would not ‘agree’ with any literal reading of the accounts of Creation in the Bible, as suggested. (For this reason, Creationism and Intelligent Design “Theory” is not science – the claims made are religious ones and not ones that you find in science).

Thus – taken overall – the claim advanced is not a scientific claim.

55. The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago – the universe is expanding!

To be fair to Einstein, he simply could not accept the conclusion of his own work, that the Universe was expanding, and fiddled the figures so that his equations fit in with the static view of the Universe. Actually, Hubble’s work verified Einstein’s theories, and Einstein is on record as regretting not trusting his own equations.

The verses state very clearly that either God ’stretched’ or ’stretches’ the heavens: indeed, ‘He’s the only one who can spread the heavens out’ (Job 9:8). Science, however, does postulate the existence of God in the ever-expanding Universe; the astonishing thing about science is the way in which it explains naturally occurring phenomena without recourse to any god or divine intervention at all. Clearly, the claim advanced on behalf of science above is not a scientific claim.

56. Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, God’s life, created all life.

Evolution is an observable fact and imagines nothing. The theory of evolution says nothing about where life comes from, but merely explains the observable fact of evolution (the fact being the appearance of change over time).

Science does not say that life on earth started with an act of creation by any god, so the claim here is false, with wholly inaccurate comments regarding evolution thrown in for good measure.

57. Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).

Another scientific claim which apparently does not meet the requirement of a scientific claim that has been prefigured in the Bible, and only much later verified by modern science. I would love to know the criteria by which such scientific claims chosen or discarded.

Nevertheless, science does not claim that new species of animals and plants ’spring’ into existence ‘occasionally’: evolution claims a continuing process, day-by-day, that in some cases ultimately results in the emergence of distinctively new species. The entire fossil record and living DNA evidence are testimony to this – the latter utterly unknown to Darwin, of course.

Some observed examples of speciation with full citations can be found here and more here, but, again, so-called “fact” 57 is an attempt to contradict scientific claims, and consequently, no scientific claim has been made.

58. Light travels in a path (Job 38:19). Light is said to have a “way” [Hebrew: derek, literally a traveled path or road]. Until the 17th century it was believed that light was transmitted instantaneously. We now know that light is a form of energy that travels at ~186,000 miles per second in a straight line. Indeed, there is a “way” of light.

The verse asks the “way to” the source of light in a number of translations, rather than describes the nature of light. Examples include the New International Version (which has the verse read ‘What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?‘ – my emphasis), New American Standard Version, King James Version, 21st Century King James Version, English Standard Version, etc. But the New Century Version uses the word “path”, thus ‘What is the path to light’s home, and where does darkness live?‘. But in case we’re not clear that the verse is asking for directions, rather than describing the nature of photons, the New International Readers’ Version has ‘Where does light come from? And where does darkness reside?‘ I don’t think you need a degree in theology to work out what that verse is asking.

However, to be clear, light does not have ‘a path’. It exists either as a particle or as a wave – something that the word “path” utterly fails to capture, but it’s nevertheless one of the intriguing insights into the nature of light in the last century.

So not only is there no scientific claim being made, but the Biblical one is decidely questionable, too!

59. Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

The New International Version – and others, such as the New Living Translation – suggest that it’s the force of the wind that’s being talked about, rather than weight.

Moreover, in the intepretation given, it is not clear whether one is talking of air mass (an area of uniform temperature and pressure), and which may have some bearing on the creation of thunderstorms (cf. Job 18:26); or the mass of air (molecular mass), alluded to above, but which plays no role in the formation of thunderstorms.

Again, no scientific claim is really being advanced here of which can be sensibly talked about.

60. Jet stream anticipated (Ecclesiates 1:6). At a time when it was thought that winds blew straight, the Bible declares “The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit.” King Solomon wrote this 3,000 years ago. Now consider this: it was not until World War II that airmen discovered the jet stream circuit.

Jetstreams (plural) exist 10-15 kms up in the atmosphere, and certainly do NOT go ’south’ and ‘turns around to the north’ and ‘whirls about continually’. The major jetstreams flow west to east. Moreover, there is nothing in the verse to indicate that an usual wind phenomenon is being talked about, but, rather, wind (singular) in general. Hence, in a previous verse, it incorrectly states that: ‘The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.’ It doesn’t hurry back anywhere, of course: it’s the earth that moves around the sun. But asides from that, the idea – that things repeating and returning back to where they started – is the same one repeated in the subsequent verses, 19:6 and 7. Note the other astonishing insight offered in Eccl. 1.4, that the earth will last forever. Er, no, it won’t.

Anyhow, the claim that jetstreams are anticipated in this verse is clearly false.

And that’s another ten examined; four false claims, and six “facts” dismissed.

Back soon with 61-70.