What are some Bible verses that are about science?

Answer 1

A:No Bible verse talks about science as a topic, but all of Genesis chapter 1 bears on matters central to scientific theory. For example:

• When Genesis 1:3 says that God created light on the first day, but in Genesis 1:14-16 he did not create the sun, moon and stars until the fourth day, we know that this is a scientific error.
• When Genesis 1:14-16 says that God created the sun, moon and stars after the earth already existed, we know this is unscientific.
• When Genesis 1:12 says that God created grass, herbs and trees before the sun even existed, we know this is scientifically impossible.

Genesis chapter 7 is about another scientific topic - a great flood that covered the earth to the top of the highest mountains. Scientists quickly dismiss this because it is impossible for there to be enough water on our earth to achieve this on a world-wide scale. Geologists also point out that there is no evidence that there ever was a great flood. Archaeologists and anthropologists point out that, for example, the Egyptian civilisation continued right through the entire period attributed to Noah, blissfully unaware of a Flood that killed everyone except Noah and his family.

Genesis 9:13-16 deals with the science of optics, when God created the rainbow which from that day forward would symbolise the covenant between God and his people. However scientists say that the laws of nature mean that rainbows could already exist billions of years before the first human on earth.

Answer:

Agreed. None exist. Having said that, the question remains, how are we to understand the relationship between science and Christianity? Many contend that science has removed the need to believe in God and The Bible.

In an articel on the Christian Research Institute's site, J.P. Moreland offers that "Others maintain science and theology mix like oil and water; they are so different that no discovery in science has any bearing on theology or vice versa. Science and religion are radically different spheres of life, they maintain. Still others seem to believe theology is not rational unless it has scientific confirmation, and they fervently look about to find that confirmation."

He adds, "Theology provides a world view in which the assumptions of science are best justified. Science cannot be practiced in thin air. In fact, it requires substantive philosophical presuppositions if it is even going to get off the runway. These assumptions include the existence, orderly nature, and knowability of the world; the reliability of our senses and intellect in discovering truth; the existence of truth itself; and the uniformity of nature. Many have argued that these assumptions, while consistent with a naturalistic world view, are odd and without ultimate justification in that world view. These assumptions are best explained and quite at home in a Christian world view." J.P. Moreland offers three more models;

"A second model is one in which theology fills out and adds detail to the general principles in a scientific model and vice versa, or theology helps to practically apply principles in a scientific model or vice versa. For example, theology teaches that fathers should not provoke their children to anger, and psychology can add important details by offering information about the nature and causes of anger. Psychology can devise various tests for assessing whether one is or is not a mature person, and theology can offer a normative definition or standard as to what a mature person is."

"A third model depicts the beliefs and methods of science and theology as involving two distinct, nonoverlapping areas of reality (e.g., the natural versus the supernatural), or as involving two noninteracting, complementary descriptions - each partially correct but incomplete - of the same reality. Each level of description will have no gaps that need to be filled by information from the other discipline. For example, debates about the extent of the Atonement have nothing to do with physical chemistry. Similarly, theologians have little interest in whether a methane molecule has three or four hydrogen atoms. Moreover, a theological description of certain aspects of human maturity (e.g., Sally is becoming more like Christ) may be complementary to a psychological description of human maturity (e.g., Sally is becoming a unified self)."

"This third view that science and theology are two complementary partial descriptions of the world is very popular today, and for good reason. It does accurately capture part of the way science and theology relate. To understand this, it is important to grasp the distinction between primary and secondary causal actions by God. Roughly, what God did in parting the Red Sea was a primary causal act; what God did in guiding and sustaining that sea beforeand after its parting involved secondary causal acts by God. Secondary causes are God's usual way of operating by which He sustains natural processes in existence and employs them as intermediate agents to accomplish some purpose. Primary causes are God's unusual way of operating and involve direct, discontinuous, miraculous actions by God."

"The complementary view is especially helpful when God acts via secondary causes. For example, chemical descriptions of the synthesis of water from hydrogen and oxygen are complementary to a theological description of God's providential governance of the chemicals during the reaction. Unfortunately, many advocates of the complementary view press their position too far by leaving no room for a fourth model of integration. This overuse of the complementary model is rooted in an inadequate view of integration and an improper understanding of the history and philosophy of science."

"According to this fourth model of integration, as directly interacting approaches to the same phenomenon, science and theology can be in conflict or concord in various ways. Sometimes a scientific belief will be logically contradictory to a theological belief. For example, some versions of the oscillating universe model imply a beginningless universe - and this contradicts biblical teaching that there was a beginning."

"Sometimes science and theology make statements that are not logically contradictory - they could both be true - but are, nevertheless, hard to square with, and tend to count against, each other. For example, most evolutionists have argued that evolutionary theory counts strongly against views of living organisms (including humans) that treat them as having natures or as having substantial souls. According to naturalistic evolution, living organisms are wholly the result of material processes operating on strictly physical objects (e.g., the "prebiotic soup").

"There is no contradiction in holding to naturalistic evolutionary theory and still viewing organisms as creatures with souls and natures as Christian theology would seem to imply. But the reality of the soul and the existence of natures is hard to square with naturalistic evolutionary theory."

"It is also possible for scientific and theological beliefs to be mutually reinforcing. For example, some have argued that the Big Bang has given support to the theological belief that the universe had a beginning. The same thing has been claimed for the second law of thermodynamics when applied to the universe as a whole. Other examples of scientific findings giving support to theological presuppositions include the delicate balance of various constants of nature (e.g., gravity) needed for any life to appear in the universe, systematic gaps in the fossil record, the information content in DNA, and the nature of human language. In each case, the theological beliefs were already reasonable without science, but scientific discoveries have given further support to them."

"The important thing about this fourth model is that it allows for theological beliefs to enter into the very practice of science. Indeed, one cannot read the history of science without seeing that theology has regularly entered into scientific practice, sometimes inappropriately but other times quite appropriately. Any view of science that rules out this fourth model is a revisionist account of science's history."

Additionally:

The Bible reveals Eve to have been the world's first "scientist," using the "scientific method" in the Garden of Eden:

Observation, Experimentation, and Human Reasoning.

"...the woman SAW that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant TO THE EYES [observation], and a tree to BE DESIRED TO MAKE ONE WISE [human reasoning], she TOOK OF THE FRUIT THEREOF, and DID EAT [experimentation]..." (Gen.3:6).