Tuesday, February 27, 2007

3539 Why it's better to trust the Bible

Bible scholars disgree on a lot of points, like whether a "day" is a literal 24 hours or a couple of million years, or how Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in the New, or the true meaning of various miracle stories and parables, or how much first century sexuality should carry over to the 21st century. But it's nothing as changeable or as debatable as what you find in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.

I just love to read science literature and blogs. Fascinating stuff. But anytime you hear politicans or non-scientific people (media talking heads and journalists) claiming all disagreement needs to be limited on a particular topic, like global warming or stem-cell research or Alzheimer's treatment, I invite you to read the first 5-10 pages of any issue of Nature. Here's what I noticed today:
  • The fat metabolism of Drosophila (fruit fly) is a mystery. . .
  • They still haven't figured out the influence of genes vs. environment in disease, and some studies are "controversial."
  • Astronomers' galaxy theories are in need of a new model because of new observational techniques.
  • "despite intense investigation. . ."
  • "it is a mystery. . ."
  • "new techniques reveal. . ."
  • "will test the hypotheses that . . ."
  • "previously unknown changes. . . "
  • "reveal an unexpected connection in. . ."
  • "more widespread consequences than previously predicted. . . "
  • "may play a role in climate change (this was not human related). . ."
  • "long running debate in how . . . "
  • "the nature of how this works is unclear. . ."
  • "the reason for this variation has been something of a mystery. . . "
  • "there is only one fossil of this 150 million year old species available for analysis. . . "
  • "Even some of the most accomplished scientists are in the dark about the most basic information underpinning their work. . . "
  • "The plant with the largest flower (a metre across) has no roots, leaves or stems and has no DNA clues on how it is related to other plants. . . "
  • the question of whether this property plays an active role in tumors has remained under debate. . . "
I rest my case--for the Biblical truths.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The scientific process of hypothesis, experiment, revision, re-test and theory is full of uncertainties, mistakes, unknowns and problems.

Science itself is not dogmatic, though scientists can be. Science looks for explanations and solutions that are good enough at the time.

Biblical truths seem solid because they are not subject to scrutiny or objective analysis. They're like a house that looks great from the street and as long as you aren't allowed to approach it, it's a dream.

But when you step on the porch? Dry rot.

The science house might not look pretty from the street, but it will keep the rain out and the floors are solid.

Norma said...

Welcome back, Chuck. I was afraid you were lost. . .er, moreso than usual.

Anonymous said...

An hour of Sunday afternoon programming on the Discovery Channel and you would swear that scientists know everything! The media tries so hard to cover up any mention that we (humans) don't have it all figured out.

Isn't it so much easier to say "we don't know ... but we're looking into it?"