"The Bible is not a science textbook" - so what?
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:01 pm
A common objection to creationism by theistic evolutionists is that the Bible is not a science textbook. While I must admit that I am open to the possibility of theistic evolution, this particular argument doesn't hold any water. It has several problems.
1.) The division of books into "religious" books, "science" books, etc. is a modern Western conception that would not be recognized in the Ancient Near East where the Bible was written. Today we would probably decide to write a book with scientific insights, philosophical insights, or whatever else from the moment we start writing. From my (albeit limited) understanding of Ancient Near Eastern culture, they would probably be more likely to write a book with insights in general, regardless of what categorizations a modern Westerner would use. I would expect to see a greater diversity of genre and purpose within a single Eastern work than within a single Western work. The "science textbook" vs. "religious book" distinction is a false dilemma and is logically fallacious.
2.) If the Bible is actually inerrant, all claims made must be true, regardless of the nature of the claims. Scientific claims must be true where they are made, and philosophical claims must be true where they are made. The task for the theistic evolutionist is to provide evidence that theistic evolution is compatible with all claims actually made. An overgeneralization as to the purpose of the Bible relies on overly Western thought, and fails even if the same standard is applied to a Western work. A clear demonstration that the story meets the characteristics of a metaphorical work, but fails to meet the characteristics of a literal work, would be a valid method. This would have to be done with reference to Ancient Near East studies, not modern Western thought. A demonstration that even a literal interpretation provides no conflict would also be valid.
3.) Just because the Bible does not primarily provide scientific insights doesn't mean that it doesn't provide any scientific insights. God doesn't always fit our Western box any more than the ancient Hebrews did.
4.) To sum up other points in terms of mathematical logic, the inerrantist claim is that a fact appearing in the Bible is sufficient to prove its truth. It is not always necessary to prove from the Bible; other methods are also valid. To point out particular instances of this occurring (as I saw with a reference to atoms in another thread) is to state the obvious and has no point.
5.) Inerrantists already know that the ancient Hebrews didn't use the modern experimental scientific method to reach their conclusions. It is believed that God revealed the information present to man. However, a direct insight from God would actually be more reliable than the scientific method, if indeed we do have a direct insight from God. It is already known that God didn't reveal that much about science, but this doesn't in any way discount what He did reveal. See my above points.
(I myself am an inerrantist, but am wording things the way I am so as to not make unsupported claims others would easily disagree with.)
1.) The division of books into "religious" books, "science" books, etc. is a modern Western conception that would not be recognized in the Ancient Near East where the Bible was written. Today we would probably decide to write a book with scientific insights, philosophical insights, or whatever else from the moment we start writing. From my (albeit limited) understanding of Ancient Near Eastern culture, they would probably be more likely to write a book with insights in general, regardless of what categorizations a modern Westerner would use. I would expect to see a greater diversity of genre and purpose within a single Eastern work than within a single Western work. The "science textbook" vs. "religious book" distinction is a false dilemma and is logically fallacious.
2.) If the Bible is actually inerrant, all claims made must be true, regardless of the nature of the claims. Scientific claims must be true where they are made, and philosophical claims must be true where they are made. The task for the theistic evolutionist is to provide evidence that theistic evolution is compatible with all claims actually made. An overgeneralization as to the purpose of the Bible relies on overly Western thought, and fails even if the same standard is applied to a Western work. A clear demonstration that the story meets the characteristics of a metaphorical work, but fails to meet the characteristics of a literal work, would be a valid method. This would have to be done with reference to Ancient Near East studies, not modern Western thought. A demonstration that even a literal interpretation provides no conflict would also be valid.
3.) Just because the Bible does not primarily provide scientific insights doesn't mean that it doesn't provide any scientific insights. God doesn't always fit our Western box any more than the ancient Hebrews did.
4.) To sum up other points in terms of mathematical logic, the inerrantist claim is that a fact appearing in the Bible is sufficient to prove its truth. It is not always necessary to prove from the Bible; other methods are also valid. To point out particular instances of this occurring (as I saw with a reference to atoms in another thread) is to state the obvious and has no point.
5.) Inerrantists already know that the ancient Hebrews didn't use the modern experimental scientific method to reach their conclusions. It is believed that God revealed the information present to man. However, a direct insight from God would actually be more reliable than the scientific method, if indeed we do have a direct insight from God. It is already known that God didn't reveal that much about science, but this doesn't in any way discount what He did reveal. See my above points.
(I myself am an inerrantist, but am wording things the way I am so as to not make unsupported claims others would easily disagree with.)