Science refuting the Bible? What shall be your remark on it?

What shall be your remark on it?

Welcome to the forum, Kevin. What is your remark on it?

While this is a diverse group, I think the majority opinion here is that the Bible neither refutes nor confirms science, There is a good book written by Denis Lamoureux titled The Bible & Ancient Science: Principles of Interpretation. You would enjoy it as it talks of how God used the understanding people had of the physical world to communicate his message.

The card described in the blog article has been around a long time, and I am sure was distributed by one of the young earth groups, but am not sure which one.


He forgot the ones about thoughts originating in our kidneys and the earth not moving or those stars “falling to the earth” as if that it really possible. The Bible contains no demonstrable supernatural knowledge of scientific findings. God accommodated his message and spoke through the mistaken cosmogonies and world-views of our ancestors.



First the title is misleading because he doesn’t really refute anything in the bible using science rather he is arguing that we a people are reading to much into the texts.

And I sort of agree with him. If we agree that genesis 1 is analogy and that a lot of God’s communication with us was often done by analogy then why should we expect those analogies to strictly represent reality. If we don’t expect the analogies to represent reality can we really take credit for it when it does ? In my opinion no, especially if their are other viable interpretation of that analogy.

I’ve also got some doubts the science then. After all they did not live in a globalized world were communicating ideas across the world is easy. Just the country would be challenge and their for their is no reason to believe that the understanding of the universe by someone in Greece would trickled down to Israel.

Now their are a few exceptions, I do find it interesting that the law has very good advice when it came to cleaning, they even had a very primitive form of soap. what I don’t know is how common this knowledge would be. For example ideas like crop rotation that are put in the law, I’m pretty sure would have been fairly common knowledge by farmers.

What is interesting though is we can see a trend, in the bible, to demystify natural phenomenon’s from supernatural to that of phenomena run by rules. In fact some have argued that the scientific revolution happened in Europe for that reason. This though is not the consensus amongst historians though. But the consensus has moved away from Christianity being a hindrance to science.

My remark would be to point out that the Bible contains many remarks which can be read as containing empirical information. This collection seems cherry picked to emphasize compatibility between modern science and the Bible, but it wouldn’t be hard find a less flattering collection. It seems to promote a misconception which can wind up creating a wedge against faith.

1 Like

I wouldn’t trust anything that gets the “Science Now” wrong.

The source appears to be Ray Comfort’s organization.

1 Like

Also for the reason that Christianity frequently promotes “we have to actually look to figure things out” as opposed to “I have this grand philosophical scheme for how everything works”.

1 Like

I would say that science can refute a particular interpretation of biblical texts but nothing more. If the image of God (the way how we see/understand God) is built on false interpretation of the biblical texts, then science may shoot down such a false image of God.

What is not constructed on truth may collapse.
What is not constructed on the redeeming work of God, Jesus Christ, is constructed on sand.


This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.