"The Bible is not a science textbook" - so what?

[jerickson314]

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.)

[sandy_mcd]

To me, the statement that the Bible is not a scientific textbook means three things:
A) The Bible is not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of the natural world [Just because something isn't mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean it isn't true; I don't think anybody will have trouble with this statement.]
B) Some statements in the Bible concerning the natural world may not be literally true; instead they may be used as metaphors or some other construct. This should also be acceptable to most people. A novel might refer to the "four corners of the world" or "the heavens above" and this is perfectly acceptable; a geology textbook better not employ such terminology.
C) The only significant meaning is that the Bible is not supposed to teach us about science. As such the Bible should not contain scientific information not known to people when it was written. For example, it shouldn't refer to modern chemical elements.

The problem is that sometimes the Bible makes statements which do not seem to be metaphorical yet seem to contradict modern mainstream scientific knowledge. I doubt that any of these statements are crucial to whatever lesson the story is trying to impart. That is, the passage could be reworded to deliver the same message without seeming to contain a scientific incongruity. Thus why is the seeming contradiction there ? I don't have a problem with these apparent inconsistencies since I feel the Bible should have been written from a contemporary worldview and that later generations would realize this. Obviously many (the majority here?) disagree.

In light of these claims, my comments on your points are:
1) Not really relevant. I don't think the Bible was written to teach us science. [I am not quite sure I understand your point here.]
2) This is a key point. Is a particular statement in the Bible a scientific claim or is it metaphorical or something else ? I suppose that I don't regard scientific errors as any more significant than minor transcription or translation errors in copying the Bible.
3) I am unaware of any scientific insights derived from the Bible.
4) I disagree with this when regarding scientific facts. Also, are you sure you think methods other than the Bible are valid ? If some other method produces results inconsistent with an inerrantist claim, then you will not believe those results. So other methods must not in any way contradict the Bible; thus they are not the same caliber proof.
5) What specific scientific insights do you think God did provide in the Bible ?

[jerickson314]

To me, the statement that the Bible is not a scientific textbook means three things:
A) The Bible is not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of the natural world [Just because something isn't mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean it isn't true; I don't think anybody will have trouble with this statement.]

That was exactly what I was saying in point 3. However, my entire post was pointing out that just because the Bible isn't a comprehensive explanation of the natural world, that doesn't mean it provides no explanation of the natural world.

B) Some statements in the Bible concerning the natural world may not be literally true; instead they may be used as metaphors or some other construct.

Certainly. I sort of alluded to this with, "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." The same could apply to particular phrases from "the four corners of the earth" to "the moon will turn to blood". This is best a task for someone who has studied Ancient Near Eastern literature. I suspect such phrases were common idioms of the day. I do not, however, believe we should jump to such conclusions for entire accounts such as the creation accounts.

This should also be acceptable to most people. A novel might refer to the "four corners of the world" or "the heavens above" and this is perfectly acceptable;

Those are common phrases and could be appropriate in works in the proper cultural contexts.

a geology textbook better not employ such terminology.

Not in a geology textbook published within the past 50 years in Western society (e.g. the United States, Europe, and similar cultures). That's not how our particular culture at this particular period of history does things.

If you're implying that the presence of figurative phrases always implies a figurative account, your conclusion is invalid. If you are indeed doing this, you are taking an observation of how today's society where you live behaves, and generalizing it to an ancient culture in a different place. The Hebrew society in B.C. times probably did not share this sort of characteristic. This is related to my point 1. In modern Western society, we use figurative language and abstract imagery in philosophical works, and precise scientific language in scientific works. Ancient societies may have been more free to mix figurative object lessons and literal histories in the same work, even including some figurative images to boot.

Also to explain my point, in today's society we have novels for entertainment and scientific books for precise scientific information. In an ancient society authors may have had more than one purpose with the same book.

C) The only significant meaning is that the Bible is not supposed to teach us about science.

This is where I disagree to some extent. I would say that science is certainly not the primary purpose of the Bible, but not that the Bible is forbidden from teaching us about science.

As such the Bible should not contain scientific information not known to people when it was written.

With divine inspiration, it could contain such scientific information, if God had some purpose to reveal it.

For example, it shouldn't refer to modern chemical elements.

I don't see any reason God would want to include this, so it's not surprising that we don't see the modern chemical elements in the Bible.

The problem is that sometimes the Bible makes statements which do not seem to be metaphorical yet seem to contradict modern mainstream scientific knowledge. I doubt that any of these statements are crucial to whatever lesson the story is trying to impart. That is, the passage could be reworded to deliver the same message without seeming to contain a scientific incongruity. Thus why is the seeming contradiction there ?

This is the difficult question. I would say that because "all truth is God's truth" (can't remember the source), one side must be misinterpreting its respective evidence. We could be incorrect in interpreting the Bible's message as literal, or science could be incorrect in interpreting the experimental data. We ought to look at evidence from both sides before coming to a conclusion.

I don't have a problem with these apparent inconsistencies since I feel the Bible should have been written from a contemporary worldview and that later generations would realize this. Obviously many (the majority here?) disagree.

Are you saying that we need to be aware of the culture in which the Bible was written? If so, I most definitely agree. However, my point 1 was that the idea that the Bible is not at all about science, and therefore not relevant to scientific truth, derives from a misunderstanding of that very culture.

In light of these claims, my comments on your points are:
1) Not really relevant. I don't think the Bible was written to teach us science. [I am not quite sure I understand your point here.]

I think I've probably responded to this sufficiently above.

2) This is a key point. Is a particular statement in the Bible a scientific claim or is it metaphorical or something else ?

I think I agree with you here. This can at times be difficult to ascertain. Input from both science and ancient culture scholarship is helpful.

I suppose that I don't regard scientific errors as any more significant than minor transcription or translation errors in copying the Bible.

I guess I would just say that areas of apparent contradiction are areas which require more study.

3) I am unaware of any scientific insights derived from the Bible.

Possibly, creation may be an insight. This is the very topic in question for many who make the objection I was responding to.

Others have noted scientific statements about the hydrological cycle and such as insights. I don't really have time to look up the sources right now.

4) I disagree with this when regarding scientific facts. Also, are you sure you think methods other than the Bible are valid ? If some other method produces results inconsistent with an inerrantist claim, then you will not believe those results.

I would actually prefer to compare evidence from both sides before coming to a conclusion.

So other methods must not in any way contradict the Bible; thus they are not the same caliber proof.

In a sense. I understand that my interpretation of the Bible may be incorrect. I do believe that because "all truth is God's truth", proper understanding of science will not contradict proper understanding of the Bible. I don't claim to known all the answers in every situation.

5) What specific scientific insights do you think God did provide in the Bible ?

See above.

I think we actually agree on more than you may realize.

[sandy_mcd]

I think we actually agree on more than you may realize.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that indeed is the case.