Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?

The great geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky is often quoted for his famous statement: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." By 'makes sense'. he is referring to the continuity and context in which all biological systems are found. He is essentially saying that evolution and the mechanisms by which it operates are as fundamental to the existence of biological entities and our understanding of them as atoms are fundamental to the existence of chemical entities and our understanding of those.Before the atomic nature of matter was established beyond doubt (in 1905 by Einstein's paper quantitatively explaining the atomic origin of Brownian motion), there were two distinct scientific theories of matter: the atomic theory and the continuum theory. Each theory claimed experimental evidence in its support and a lot of empirical evidence could be interpreted to support both theories. The concepts underlaying these two theories and the heated controversies as to which was correct can be traced back to early Greek philosophies (and probably arose much earlier): Zeno's paradoxes assume the continuum theory, while Democrites' atomic theory was proposed in part to refute Zeno's paradoxes.The point of this PNT is to ask if the bible, in any of its passages, takes a stand on this controversy. Can anyone quote a biblical passage that clearly states, or that can be interpreted to state that matter is either continuous or atomic in nature? "Atomic" here means made up of distinct units and includes molecules as well as atoms.I will start the ball rolling with the second verse of Genesis: "And the earth was without form, and void..." 'Without form' clearly implies that the matter of the earth was continuous and not atomic in nature, for if it were atomic (and molecular), it would have the form of the atoms (and molecules) that make it up. Thus, either Genesis 1.2 or the atomic theory of matter is correct, but not both.Any comments or other examples from the bible that support one theory or the other?What forum? Bible inerrancy I suppose.

While Einstein's Brownian motion paper made a contribution, weren't the contributions of Ernest Rutherford far more significant in this regard?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Rutherford's 1911 work elucidating the internal structure of atoms and correcting Thompson's 'plum pudding' model was certainly an important contribution to understanding atomic structure, but it is my understanding that it was Einstein's 1905 work that convinced the last holdouts for the continuum theory that matter had to be atomic in nature.Almost all chemists were already convinced of the atomic theory by Dalton's work on the ratios of atoms in chemicals, but many physicists still adhered to the continuum model due to the laws of thermodynamics being based on continuum models and thermodynamics being the 'hot topic' in the late 19th century.But I really didn't mean this thread to be concerned with science history. I only threw in the Einstein connection as a side interest. I will remove that comment if you think it confuses the issue I wish to see discussed: whether the bible appears to come down on one side or the other of the continuum vs. atomic conflict. I am, of course, looking to see if there is an issue besides geology (flood, etc.) and biology (creationnism, etc.) where bible literacy and modern science can be compared or contrasted, an issue that is hopefully more directly and less contentiously resolved.

Thread copied to the Do atoms confirm or refute the bible? thread in the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.