Science Then And Now

Have any of you encountered the creationist tracks extolling the Bible as a scientific text? In one I was recently referred to, evangelist Ray Comfort presents a perspective of science then and now to show just how well our knowledge today was predicted by the Bible. If you promise to read them all, I’ll offer some ideas about Biblical science. Keep in mind that my personal perspective is as a Christian and a scientist who sees very little in conflict with those positions.

1. THE BIBLE: The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). SCIENCE NOW: The earth is a sphere. SCIENCE THEN: The earth was a flat disk.
2. THE BIBLE: Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). SCIENCE NOW: Incalculable number of stars. SCIENCE THEN: Only 1,100 stars.
3. THE BIBLE: Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7). SCIENCE NOW: Free float of earth in space. SCIENCE THEN: Earth sat on a large animal.
4. THE BIBLE: Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3). SCIENCE NOW: Creation made of invisible elements (atoms). SCIENCE THEN: Science was mostly ignorant on the subject.
5. THE BIBLE: Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41). SCIENCE NOW: Each star is different. SCIENCE THEN: All stars were the same.
6. THE BIBLE: Light moves (Job 38:19,20). SCIENCE NOW: Light moves. SCIENCE THEN: Light was fixed in place.
7. THE BIBLE: Air has weight (Job 28:25). SCIENCE NOW: Air has weight. SCIENCE THEN: Air was weightless.
8. THE BIBLE: Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6). SCIENCE NOW: Winds blow in cyclones. SCIENCE THEN: Winds blew straight.
9. THE BIBLE: Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11). SCIENCE NOW: Blood is the source of life and health. SCIENCE THEN: Sick people must be bled.
10. THE BIBLE: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6). SCIENCE NOW: Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains. SCIENCE THEN: The ocean floor was flat.
11. THE BIBLE: Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16). SCIENCE NOW: Ocean contains springs. SCIENCE THEN: Ocean fed only by rivers and rain.
12. THE BIBLE: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). SCIENCE NOW: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water. SCIENCE THEN: Hands washed in still water.

This list is a clever attempt by certain Creationists to claim the Bible as scientific. This doubtless is a rhetorical tactic in the effort to confer legitimacy to the Genesis accounts of creation. There are two main problems with this presentation: 1) Science did not exist until the sixteenth century and 2) The Bible is not a scientific text.

At the foundation of each of these claims is that science is not merely about predictions. Science combines innovation and idea with a rugged process of hypothesis testing and repeated fine-tuning to formulate a theory that when applied to unknown situations can explain them to the best of our ability. Unlike Ben Stein’s perception of science as a static entity unchanged since the days of Charles Darwin, elements of science are always in flux.

Right – my points:

1. The SCIENCE NOW/ SCIENCE THEN dichotomy is flawed most simply because the world view in the ancient world was not scientific. Sure there were glimmers of it all over the ancient world – Egypt, Greece, South America, India, China, Arabia – but the progression of thinking of something, testing it objectively and using the results to formulate predictions just hadn’t come around yet. Humans were stuck describing, categorizing and guessing. (This, by the way, worked pretty well for us most of the time.) It is as unfair to claim the then prevailing world-views as science then as it is to claim astrology as science today. Each has made predictions about the world, but only science as we know it today can be tested. (Also recall that ‘science’ wasn’t even a commonly used word until the early 19th Century!)

2. The Bible is not scientific. If it were, the writers would have incorporated those flawed (SCIENCE THEN) explanations into its stories. The world would not have been created in six days; it would have been vomited by a scarab. I admit, this second point is not as strong. It actually makes me sound like I’m in a “Yes it is/No it’s not” argument. Even so, I don’t think I have written enough recently of my opinion that the Bible is not a scientific text. The absence of there even being science when it was written aside (see point 1, above), few in Christendom or the Jewish or Muslim worlds would identify these texts as scientific. What else was there to describe in these verses but items in the natural world? Referring to rocks does not make your novel a geologic text. Even the references cited in the list above are oblique references to physical phenomena. Check out the Job 38:19-20 text. I’m pretty used to sorting out metaphors in the Bible; maybe that’s why identifying these verses as referring to the propagation of light was so hard. By the way, in this section of his trials, God is speaking to Job in the midst of a terrible storm. It is often interpreted as emphasizing the power of God and the finite knowledge of man, both in the ways of the world and the ways of Heaven.

These are my raw thoughts on this matter. If I didn’t have to study up on anemia and GI disease tonight (how appropriate!), maybe I could formulate some more succinct arguments. I guess I will have to leave some of that up to you, dear reader.

Big hat tip to Tangled up in Blue Guy.

Fertile Biblical Debate

The hinge for many arguments about stem cell research is the same as for the abortion debate. When does personhood begin? Since, I recently made a post referring to abortion, I thought I would follow it up with a position statement on that topic.

I think the least-read entry on my blog so far is one from last month concerning the theological concept of concordism. I want to come back to that term now in conjunction with a presentation of one Christian perspective that is consistent with the moral use of human embryonic stem cells in research and to an extent does not rule out a pro-choice political perspective.

What follows is a lengthy post by someone without theological training, but who is committed to the struggle of reconciling his personal religious, political and scientific world-views. My intent is not to draw you to anger, but to understand a perspective on abortion that you might have yet to consider.

First, some reminders about concordism:

• Concordism is the view that the biblical accounts, when properly understood, will be in agreement with scientific accounts of the natural world.
• The extent that individuals attempt to reconcile conflicting biblical statements with each other and with what scientific study has demonstrated depends on whether that individual pursues a verse that supports his or her opinion or tries to assemble a comprehensive concordist explanation.
• Concordism occurs in both the literalist approach to interpreting the Bible and in the position that the text concerns the relationship between God and his creation rather than a scientific account written in a pre-scientific era.

I have identified several verses from the Bible that are commonly cited as support for personhood occurring at fertilization. Quotations are from the New International Version, available free here.

These include:

Psalm 139: 13-16
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 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.
Job 31:15
15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?
Jeremiah 1:5
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Each of these point to God's knowledge and creative activity before birth. This could refer to omniscience or activity even before fertilization. No specific comment on fertilization occurs here. In fact, Jeremiah 1:5 emphasizes God's relationship with Jeremiah even prior to his conception. It is a relationship verse rather than an explanation verse, but some strict concordists might disagree.

Other frequently cited sections in the abortion dialogue are:

Job 3:3
3 "May the day of my birth perish, and the night it was said, 'A boy is born!'
Isaiah 49:1
1 Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.
Psalm 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Luke 1:41-44
41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.
Luke 1:15
15He will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.
Galatians 1:15
15God set me apart from birth (OR from my mother's womb, depending on translation) and called me by his grace.

None of these say anything precise about the origin of personhood. One of them even makes a nice prescription against pregnant mothers drinking alcohol.

The major references to personhood are:

Exodus 21:22-25
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Numbers 5:11-31
(A long passage about what is to be done if a woman is suspected of unfaithfulness to her husband that treats the husband and wife as the only persons involved in a cleansing ritual. The swelling of the abdomen is fully part of the woman. An irreverent interpretation may be found here.)

These last two actually suggest that personhood is not immediately present at fertilization. In order for one to draw a conclusion about fertilization, a concept from modern science must be retroactively applied to the ancient words. For example, some folks like to think of the unformed body in Psalm 139:16 as the morula or blastocyst (stages of development that occur days after fertilization), but it could just as easily be a 'twinkle in your father's eye' or cosmic dust.

Why are these verses so often cited as supporting a pro-life political perspective? My guess is that people try to apply science and what we know about life today to text from the Bible written long ago. I think that it is wrong to apply new meaning to old words, particularly if you consider them sacred, holy, or (separate from religious significance) just an important account of a moral code.

It is within their right for fellow Christians to offer perspectives that differ with mine regarding this issue. I begin to take offense when people uncritically accept others' uses of words from the Bible - what I consider a catalyst for God's relationship with humans - to support political perspectives that are at the periphery of what it means to be a Christian, and then tell me that my reading is wrong.

So if there are any atheists out there who use the refrain that moderate Christians are complicit with fundamentalists by not speaking out, here is one voice saying, "Wait a minute!"

Thanks to an article by Robert Boomsma for helping identify these verses.

Theological Concept: Concordism

When's the last time you thought about how the Bible relates to science? If you read science blogs like I do, this topic comes up quite a bit - often as the butt of jokes. Most of what I see in the science and (Christian) religion 'debate' are arguments from one side of how the Bible portrays a precise account of creation from the other side of how the stories in the Bible are mythological nonsense. There is an obscure school of thought from the 19th century that may offer some wiggle room for individuals interested in exploring the possibility that God played a role in creation, but who hold science as the best approach to investigate the natural order.

Concordism is the view that the biblical account of creation, when properly understood, will be in agreement with scientific accounts of natural history. Understanding where you (or the person you are talking to) stand on the spectrum of concordist perspectives will make it easier for you to understand what direction the discussion will go.

Does this mean that we are to take accounts of natural history in the Bible as correlating to modern day scientific observations?

Biblical literalists will argue that any allusion to natural history in the Bible must correspond to actual physical events. This is an approach with a very high degree of concordism. The problem with this approach is that literalist concordists are trying to find scientific data in a passage that is pre-scientific.

At the other end of the spectrum is the position that the Bible does not intend to teach us about natural history and is only using the language of nature to help our understanding of spiritual truths. This is the minimal degree of concordism.

Most theologians acknowledge that the primary message of the Bible concerns the relationship between God and his creation, not an account of the creation. Taking account of creation is where science comes in handy. The added bonus is that science in this role can be undertaken by anyone familiar with empiricism and the scientific method.

And perhaps in the end, we can note the similarities between the progression of Genesis creation account and the progression of species described by the paleontological record and say, "One wonders about that." Or we might be left curious about how it is that altruistic behavior arose and note that the central message of the New Testament is one of altruism.