The most science could say about turning water into wine is it has never been observed.
1 Like
What do you mean? Please elaborate 
The Bible contains many observations (some of which are wrong) of the natural world, but that doesn’t make it a science text book. The scientific method, which many people just call “science”, didn’t exist until 1543 or later.
To turn plain water into wine would require the addition of the proper compounds, which is technically possible, but not if they just magically appeared in the water. This is why it would be called a miracle. But remember the purpose of a miracle in the NT is to serve as a sign and not just a magic trick.
2 Likes
I agree that the Bible is not a science textbook and should not be approached or interpreted like such textbooks.
Despite that, there are at least two cases that are interesting from the viewpoint of (ecological) science.
The first experimental work I know is what is described in 1 Samuel 6:7-12. In that story the Philistines have taken the Ark of the Covenant. They face a plague that seems to be associated with an eruption of rodents (rodents may spread diseases). They think that the God of Israel may have caused this plague but understand that it could also have happened by chance. So they arrange an experiment. From the modern viewpoint, the experiment suffers from a lack of replicates but otherwise, it is a valid experiment.
The first description of the factors that affect plant reproductive success can be found from a parable of Jesus (the parable of the sower in Matthew 13:1-23). It lists the most important mortality factors and from the information, it is possible to calculate the natural rate of increase for the population. That parable was noted and included in an influential textbook of plant ecology. IIRC, the textbook was Plant Ecology by Michael Crawley.
When we inspect the biblical stories through a scientific mindset, we can note many interesting details. The details were not told to tell ‘scientific’ information about the world but the reader may see beauty in the details.
1 Like
It was not intended to be an experiment, but was actually a divination. The modern equivalent would be tossing a coin and going north if heads or south if tales, with the assumption that God determines the outcome of the coin toss.
As long as you ignore the details that are wrong. Given our current modern understanding of the world we tend to do this automatically and not notice.
I partly agree.
We see and filter the text through the interpretative model (worldview) we have in our head, which means that we either misunderstand or skip some details that represent a differing worldview.
After we learn to understand something about the worldview of the writer, it allows us to see the details without letting the modern western worldview interfere too much.
For example, when we learn what kind of cosmology the ANE people believed in, many passages may open from a different viewpoint.
Another example is the classification of animals. For me as a (retired) biologist, it is natural that there are different kind of classifications because classifications depend on the criteria we use. If flying is what sets one animal group apart, then it is natural that we classify both bats and birds to the category ‘flying animals that are larger than the small bugs’ = ‘birds’.
A cherry on top of the cake is when we can read the stories through the knowledge we have gained through our profession or hobby. For example, I spent 20 years of my career studying the population oscillations of small mammals, so the details that are associated with the eruptions of rodent populations or more generally, the factors that regulate or limit population numbers, are quite interesting for me.
It was not intended as an experiment, that is true, but the setup follows the same logical principles as modern experiments, with the exception that there are no replicates. The lack of replicates is understandable because there was no possibilities to replicate the situation.
Replicates are important when we want to calculate the statistical probabilities but in the world of scientific publication, such probability statistics is only needed for convincing the critical readers - if you can convince the readers in some other way, there is no need for statistical analyses.
The logic in the story was that there were two ‘competing’ explanations for what was observed. In other words, two hypotheses. The Philistines planned a way (‘experimental setup’) how they could distinguish between the two competing hypotheses. What happened supported the hypothesis that there was ‘an external power’ (god) involved in what happened.
As I understand experimental design, you have one hypothesis which the experiment either supports or not.
Take off your science glasses. They setup a divination, just like casting lots to determine God’s judgement.
The ‘normal’ reason for performing experiments is to see which of the competing hypotheses can best explain what happens. The experimental setup is planned so that it can compare the predictions of the competing hypotheses. The hypotheses that can correctly predict what happens get support from the experiment. Experiments cannot prove any hypothesis but the hypothesis that can predict correctly what happens gets strong support from the experiment.
It may be that within physics, there is often just one hypothesis against the ‘null’ hypothesis. I have mainly done experiments within ecology and multiple competing hypotheses are common within ecology.
Murphy’s Law means that too often, your experiment returns 1.5 when your hypothesis relies on it to being either 1 or 2. The worst sort of experimental outcomes are the ambiguous ones where you learn nothing useful from the work.
Unless the experiment fails technically, you learn from the experiment something. It may not bring the answer you hoped but it can serve as a step forward.
If neither of the compared hypotheses can explain what happens, it hints that there is a need for a new explanation - that would be an interesting and valuable result.
Another lesson may be that the experimental setup was somehow inadequate and we need an improved setup to get reliable results. That may be a frustrating conclusion, especially if the experiment was expensive and time-consuming, but it is a step forward.