Menu
header photo

W  e  l  c   o   m   e        t  o     :

Godless American Patriot

Scientific Theory vs Scripture 
By Gene Johns 
05/02/22 

All the religions of the world, more than 4,300 of them, require faith (belief without evidence) because not one of those more than 4,300 religions has proven their deity exists or their equivalent to the “Bible” is true, not one. 

In a blog, David, a Christian friend of mine, writes that I choose science over the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. He is right, I do. David further states, "It's the idea that the scientific community is not wrong, and the Scriptures are only correct in the areas they agree with the scientific community, and even then, the authority is in the scientific community and not the Scriptures." 

David is correct when he says I choose science over Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. He is also correct when he says I believe Scripture is only correct when it agrees with scientific theory and scientific theory is the authority about the science of Earth and not Scripture. 

David is incorrect when he says the scientific community says it is not wrong. Scientists do not say scientific theory is not wrong. I do not believe David understands that or he would not say it. Scientific theory draws a conclusion of known facts, and that conclusion can change if the facts are updated. Scientists have never claimed scientific theory is the absolute truth. Christians claim Scripture is the absolute truth based on faith (belief without evidence).     

Science simply provides a conclusion of the available evidence (facts) to best define, with scientific theory, where the evidence leads. Scientists admit scientific theory can be wrong because they may not have all the facts. There have been times when the conclusion of a scientific theory of a particular subject changed because of new evidence. Christians do not change their belief when Scripture has been proven to be wrong. Which is more intellectually honest, scientific theory or faith?    

Scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world (yes, I know, I will get to that later) and the universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.  

The results of a scientific theory model are only as good as the information provided. If new information is provided, then the scientific theory will adjust accordingly. Christians never put Scripture to the test using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and an honest evaluation of the results. Christians use Scripture to prove Scripture, which proves nothing because that is a circular argument.  

Before I go any further, let me address the "elephant" in that first sentence above defining scientific theory. As said, a scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the "natural world." Obviously, science does not explain any aspect of the supernatural because there is no way to evaluate the supernatural. The supernatural has not been proven to exist.  

Yes, there may be some Scripture that is true. Even the comic book Spiderman has some truths of reality in it because the setting for Spiderman is in New York City and there is a New York City. One true statement in a book doesn't make the rest of a book true. We all know Spiderman isn't real unless, of course, you have faith Spiderman is real.  

David's blog that I am referring to is titled, "The Authority of Science and the Monkey." His title suggests he doesn't understand evolution. As typical for those who don't accept evolution as a conclusion for evidence provided by scientific theory, they erroneously argue we did not come from a monkey.   

Humankind did not come from a monkey! Christians make that incorrect assertion all the time. I am in no way an expert on or that knowledgeable about evolution. But I do know that scientific theory does not show we came from monkeys. 

If you are interested, you can read the scientific theory of how we came about by visiting livescience.com and reading Charles Q Choa's article "Human Evolution: Where We Came From," published November 02, 2009. Of course, there are many books about the scientific theory of evolution and how it was determined. None claim we came from a monkey. 

David asked in his blog, "If the scientific community came and said 1+1=3, would you believe it? I wouldn't." I wouldn’t either David unless scientific theory, with new evidence, proved it was true. I don't blindly accept what any scientist says. I do accept the results of scientific theory, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and a peer-reviewed evaluation of the results. However, if Scripture said 1+1=3, David and all Christian apologists would blindly accept that calculation as true, even when facts proved 1+1=2.  That is faith-based incredulity. 

David has said in the past that I have confirmation bias because I accept the conclusion of scientific theory as fact. That doesn’t make any sense. A scientific theory does not take a position and then work the facts to conform to that predisposed position. That is exactly what David, Dr. Snelling, and other Christian apologists do. They work the facts to align with Scripture and ignore facts that do not agree with Scripture. Their faith (belief without evidence) prevents them from accepting facts that do not support Scripture and they just do not understand that. Again, that is faith-based incredulity.  

Christians blindly accept Scripture because of faith. The very definition of faith is belief without evidence. Why would anyone believe in anything without evidence? The Bible (Scripture) is not evidence. Why? First, one would have to prove a God exists and then one would have to prove the Bible is the word of that God. Neither of those things has happened. David, and all Christians, use Scripture as proof to prove Scripture. That is a circular argument. It goes nowhere.  

David correctly says that I do not believe in God and that I do not believe the Scriptures have any authority whatsoever. I do not believe in God because there has never been any creditable verifiable demonstrative evidence a God exists. Christians admit there is not any creditable verifiable demonstrative evidence all the time because say they believe by faith. Again, the definition of faith is belief without evidence.   

David says if I am given a statement from Scripture that absolutely cannot be refuted, I will not recognize its truth. That is not true David. Provide me with Scripture that can be proven with creditable verifiable evidence to be correct, and I will believe it. There may very well be some Scripture that is correct. That does not make all Scripture correct. The Scripture that is correct does not prove God exists.  

David claims I believe if Scripture were to present any truth whatsoever it would have to come from some other authority. That is not true. I have already acknowledged some Scripture is true. However, the Bible (Scripture) is not a book of science. Any claims made in the Bible need to be validated to be true.  

The truth? David claims that for someone like me to come to the knowledge of the truth, it will have to be God who saves us. David, the truth is that God cannot be confirmed to exist. The truth is the Bible cannot be validated to be the word of God. It is hypocritical to claim I cannot come to the truth of the Scripture, which most has not been proven to be true, and Christians will not accept creditable verifiable demonstrative proof of scientific theory when scientific theory does not support Scripture.  

I understand the concept Christians put forth about non-believers. Non-believers, Christians say, are the victims of sin and non-believers reject God because they are unwilling to give up their worldly desires. Until Christianity can be proven to be real, the Bible is nothing more than a book of adult fairy tales and myths. I don't accept the Bible (so-called God's word) as authority for an explanation about life and the universe because it is nothing more than a book written by men who were ignorant about Earth science. The Bible is often guilty of plagiarizing from earlier religions.  

Why doesn't David believe in the truth of the Quran? Why doesn't he believe in the truth of Hinduism, Buddhism, or the Book of Mormon? Just about everything David accuses me of doing, he does to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Book of Mormon, and all the other religions of the world. I just go one religion more. 

You can read David's blog which inspired me to write this essay. His blog is at:
Theology Confused: Studying the plain text: "The Authority of Science and the Monkey" (studyplaintext.blogspot.com)
Comments 

[Please note I value David's friendship. We have been friends for a long time. We simply disagree about God, religion, and science. I trust our friendship will continue. Thank you, David, for allowing me to express my views completely without any indignation from you.]