The Bible & Science: The Ultimate Power Couple

[athrock]

I came across this announcement, and I thought it might be worth passing on for those who are interested:



Dr. Michael Guillen’s newest book "Amazing Truths: How Science and the Bible Agree" (HarperCollins) will be released on February 9, 2016.

Born in East Los Angeles, he earned his BS from UCLA and his MS and PhD from Cornell University in physics, mathematics and astronomy.

For 8 years he was an award-winning physics instructor at Harvard University. For 14 years he was the Emmy-award-winning science correspondent for ABC News, appearing regularly on "Good Morning America," "20/20," "Nightline," and "World News Tonight."

He has written a preview article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/0...cmp=hphz04

[GrandizerII]

Would've been impressive if this was published in a peer reviewed journal instead of as just a book.

[LostLocke]

Science does completely mesh with the Bible..... if you're not a Bible literalist.
If you are a Bible literalist, then science does not and can not be compatible with it.

[Chad32]

I've heard the argument that the bible is scientifically accurate. However the creation story doesn't mesh with how planets formed, you can't make livestock have striped young by putting striped poles in front of them while they have sex, diseases are not caused by demons, among other false things. The bible doesn't really mesh with science, and some theists are opposed to science just because the bible doen't agree with it. A good example would be evolution, which is the foundation of modern biology, yet there are religious people who believe it's false.

[Alex K]

But they obviously don't agree at all.... He must be doing a lot of cherry picking and arbitrary interpreting of words to mean whatever he wants, for that exercise to work. Well, I guess it'll pay him the rent for a while. Just don't expect me to be impressed.

[robvalue]

I've heard you can buy books that just have science in them now, without having to cross anything out or pretend it says other stuff.

[Esquilax]

Would've been impressive if this was published in a peer reviewed journal instead of as just a book.

That is the game being played here. The author has a scientific background, he knows how science publications work, and presumably has an idea of why that stuff is important. But when it comes to the religious beliefs, the rigorous fact checking must be stopped, the god must be treated with kid gloves, the peer review process must be short circuited. Despite this, those who already want what the author claims to be true (it's no accident that athrock could not possibly have read the book yet, but has still decided that it's accurate) will trot it out as "scientific evidence" despite not going through any of the steps of the scientific method or publication regimen, and skeptics like us are expected not to ask why that is.

I mean, it's only a claim that, if true, would turn the majority of science on its head and contradict the majority of what we've learned. Why on earth would we want that fact checked?

[brewer]

The first chapter.

http://www.michaelguillen.com/htdocs/Boo...amptxt.pdf

In the last paragraph he states "That’s why I wrote this book. Not to convert you to my way of seeing things - I  don’t have that kind of power. But to explain the reasons why I rejoice daily in the choice I have made - and what a huge, practical difference that choice has made in my life and can make in your life as well."

Sounds like he is admitting that the book is more opinion and rationalization than fact.

[Angrboda]

I think one would have to read the book to find out. However his first claim, that the bible and science both support absolute truth is a big snooze. It reminds me of Muslim attempts to claim scientific miracles in the koran by retrofitting vague language onto modern scientific conceptions.

[athrock]

Would've been impressive if this was published in a peer reviewed journal instead of as just a book.

Yeah, 'cause the author appears to need that given his lack of credentials.