The Bible & Science: The Ultimate Power Couple

[drfuzzy]

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. 

Peer-reviewed has nothing to do with credentials.  It means that a diverse set of professionals have checked the sources cited in the work, and have checked the scientific methods used and the data, and confirmed that the findings are valid.  That is why most college professors now require students to use only peer-reviewed scholarly articles in their projects and papers.

[Cyberman]

It's not the author or his credentials that need the peer review. It's the stuff he's claiming. He should know that.

[Edwardo Piet]

"How Science and the Bible agree"...................................................
...
...
..
.

[Cyberman]

Actually, science and the bible do agree. They have nothing to do with each other. No disagreement there.

[Jenny A]

The book appears to disappoint Christian reviewers at GoodReads:

"I am a Christian and I love science, so this book sounded right up my alley. Unfortunately, while Amazing Truths purports to show how science and the Bible support each other, it actually just draws dubious parallels between scientific and Biblical "facts." It's like a collection of vaguely scientific sermon illustrations. There's a place for that, I guess, but it shouldn't be sold as some kind of apologetics primer. Throw in a lot of sentence fragments and corny jokes and I couldn't even give it a third star for sincerity."

"The author tries to draw parallels between the physical world and the Christian faith. That sounds great but a lot of the parallels are awkward. For example, quantum entanglement is a metaphor for how God speaks to us in mysterious ways. Light is a particle and a wave in the same way that Jesus is God and man. (Too bad he didn't say that water is a metaphor for the Trinity. That's one of my favorites.) You get the idea. The theology was fine but the examples felt forced and superficial."
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26263...ing-truths

In other words it's mostly metaphorical.

[Edwardo Piet]

Actually, science and the bible do agree. They have nothing to do with each other. No disagreement there.

No disagreement but no agreement either. When the Bible says "Goddididit" Science doesn't say "I agree" Science says "What the fuck are you talking about? That's not relevant to the real world." Hehe.

[robvalue]

@Jenny: Whoops! I wonder if this book is going to do more harm than good when seen by the more liberal, educated Christians.

Maybe he's another undercover atheist...

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm an undercover turtle. True dat.

[Cecelia]

You know, I'm tempted to write a book with a bunch of nonsense in it explaining how the bible and science mesh. I wonder if I could make a bit of money on it.

Let's see...

On the second day God created plants. Now some say that there's a contradiction there -- because God had not yet created the sun. How could the plants survive without sun and Photosynthesis? It isn't until the third day that God creates the sun and the moon and the stars. This appears to cause a problem. While some suggest that the ancient Hebrews did not know about photosynthesis, and therefore the bible wasn't divinely inspired... the fact that God creates the sun on the very next day suggests just the opposite. God knew that the plants would need a source of light in order to survive. The plants already had water, but they needed a source of light. So why didn't he create the Sun before the plants? The answer may surprise you! Without plants to 'breathe', the temperature of the atmosphere of Earth would be significantly higher. So God knew that he would need plants before their source of light and food so that they'd cool down the temperatures. Some may argue that without a source of light and food the plants would simply die. The temperature of the earth would be far too cold for plants in the first place. Which is absolutely true -- this period is the ice age our scientists have discovered. The earth was too cold, which made it hard for plants to survive. But it was thanks to the existence of plants (and later the sun) that made it possible for the temperature to heat up and for us to come out of the ice age. As for the expectation of the sun being older than the earth... well who's word are you going to take for it? God Almighty who was there when it happened, or a bunch of scientists who can't even cure cancer? Besides, water on earth is older than the sun. This proves the bible. Scientists in the future will have a more accurate age of the sun and earth, and come to the conclusion that the sun is in fact younger than the earth.

Even evolution can be seen in Genesis. Adam spends time trying to find a helper. These helpers are evolution in process. Nowhere does is say that Adam named everything in creation in a day. Over many many many years, Adam tried to breed with many different 'Eves", which later turned into our modern Apes and Monkey's. However, none of them were a proper help mate. They couldn't possibly match the process of God's perfect creation in man. God then decided to make woman out of a piece of Adam -- one of his ribs. This explains the evidence of evolution. It's the result of many of Adam's help mates.

As for Noah's ark.... well that's just allegory.

[Alex K]

Oh I am regularly tempted to write some outrageous esoteric book just to see how well I could do compared to the pro woo peddlers (not that badly, I am convinced) but damn, those ethics n stuff