The relevence of Biblical claims to science

My concern is that this is not a discussion about whether spirituality is relevent to science. I'm happy to say that it need not be. The title of this topic suggests that, and I fear it will lose participants as such. I think the real question is whether the creation claims in the Bible deal with the physical, and are thus relevent. It is, in fact, the notion that the Biblical claims are only spiritually relevent, and thus not relevent here as in incorrect claim. If agreed, can we keep the focus there?

on the questions and suggestsion forum I suggested:Perhaps we could agree to change the title to make it more inclusive of both our concerns. e.g."Biblical claims on creation: irrelevent spirituality or physical relevence?"That would appease me. Otherwise, I think we might not be quite on the same track.

Admin suggests "The relevence of Biblical claims to science"Would this work for you? I think I can live with that myself.

Fabulous! Quetzel, let us note that for this brief moment we are in agreement. I'm off for the day, but I look forward to posting on the topic tomorrow. Ciao.

Do you think perhaps you are being a bit narrow in only accepting answers to those questions from a spiritual context as convincing that spriritual matters and/or Biblical claims about physical matters are worth your time exploring?

Yes, Nosy, I'm actually working on a response right now. As I read Quetzal's posts, it appears that he will only accept answers to those 6 questions. I will not answer those questions, but I will answer his main question "Are scientists missing truth by rejecting the spiritual?" with examples....soon to come.

Quetzal has begun this thread with a fabulous question:Are scientists missing truth by rejecting the spiritual?In my post I proposed a slightly different question, namely:Are scientists missing truth by rejecting what the Bible says about the Physical?While I might be enlarging the scope too much, perhaps we can address both of these questions as we debate. I have framed my question differently so that it has more parallelism with Quetzal’s question.So let me begin.1. Are scientists missing truth by rejecting the Spiritual?In this context, if I am not mistaken, truth refers to scientific truth. For example, the question asks if we could say, Are scientists missing the truth about our origins by rejecting the spiritual? or as quetzal might propose, Are scientists missing the truth about why are there no predators on Barro Colorado by rejecting the spiritual? Given this framework, let me make my first claim:1.a. Scientists are missing some scientific truth by rejecting the Spiritual truths of the BibleI say some because I recognize that such questions as Quetzal proposed in message 1 of this thread do not appear to be significantly, if at all, answered in a spiritual framework. It is possible that spiritual truths might be drawn from the scientific facts Quetzal proposed, but it would simply be using those facts which might be used as illustrations of whatever spiritual truths one person or another might believe in.Because I say some, though, I am also claiming that the practice of science, when fully divorced from, specifically, Biblical claims of a spiritual nature, some scientific truth as I have defined it will be unattainable.Specifically, here are some examples of scientific truth that will be unattainable in my humble opinion:1.a.1. How are miracles possible?
1.a.2. What causes people to act unkindly, aggressively, selfishly, etc to one another?My claim is that these questions cannot be answered fully without exploring the spiritual claims of the Bible.1.b. Scientists are missing some scientific truth by rejecting the existence of a spiritual realm.I make this claim with the following defense:1.b.1. Scientists reject a spiritual realm.
1.b.2. The spiritual realm affects the physical realm.
1.b.3. Therefore, the physical realm is concerned with the spiritual realm.
1.b.1. Therefore, scientists are missing some physical truth which is related to the spiritual realm.Hopefully these few claims regarding Quetzal’s main question will draw on some positive conversation and debate here. I have made specific claims regarding what physical truth cannot be found without considering a spiritual component relevant. Therefore, it seems fitting to treat my specific examples.Now I will move on to the second question.2. Are scientists missing truth by rejecting what the Bible says about the Physical?In this context, let us take the same definition of truth as in the first question. My claim then, in regards to this question is:2.a. Scientists are missing some scientific truth by rejecting the truths of the Bible that concern the physical.What I mean by this claim is the following: Quetzal’s questions in post 1 started as:
1) why
2) why
3) why
4) explain
5) explain
6) Bonus challenge. ExplainThe obvious conclusion is that scientists considers whys as questions which science should be in the scope of answering. For example, the entirety of Quetzal’s first question is:1) Why are there no predators on Barro Colorado?It is up to me, then, to propose a similar scientific question or questions where the why cannot be completely answered through purely scientific means. It is then that claim 2.a. will be proven. Let me then propose one such question. As this debate continues, perhaps more can be considered.1.a.1. Why does a newborn’s Vitamin K levels shoot up on the eight day of birth and then go back down?This is an important question. There are certain things that scientists can answer about it scientifically. But can they really answer the why? question fully? No! However, the Bible does provide the why that science could never come up with on its own, yet, after hearing the Bible’s why, science can then verify. Here is the Bible’s answer:God spoke to His people and told them to circumcise their baby boys on the eighth day of their birth. Interestingly enough, it just so happens that babies vitamin K shoots up miraculously on the eighth day only to accommodate this procedure so the wound can close and heal. The non-scientific explanation for this is that God built this in to His design to accommodate His command. None of this really makes any contextual sense in science though, because it would just look at the procedure and say, "This is not useful." So, the why to this question is because God asked His people to circumcise on the 8th day and had to accommodate that command.So, here is an example of a question about the physical world that the Bible answers the why to fully that science never can.

Fair Questions MrHambre. I would like my example to stand, so I will interact with your objections:

quote:

---

1) Presumably all societies, even non-Judeo-Christian ones, have newborns whose vitamin K levels fluctuate the way you describe. What use is this fluctuation in the majority of human societies, which do not circumcise their young?

---

God's desire is for all people to be His children. His perfect creation, then, should be equipped to handle His commands. It is like asking why God allowed a person born blind to still have an eye I think.

quote:

---

2) Do female newborns have the same fluctuations in vitamin K levels? Why would they, if the Bible says nothing about female circumcision?

---

They do not interestingly enough, which is why it seems particularly miraculous that only males on the 8th day have enormously high levels.

quote:

---

3) Wouldn't it make more sense for males to be born without foreskins, thus making it unnecessary to mutilate them in a procedure that a surprisingly large amount of physicians consider unsafe, useless, and barbaric?

---

Of course we could postulate what would make more sense to us, but if there is a creator, should we really tell Him how He could have done it better? There is a great deal of symbolism and identity which goes along with that practice. It is the same reason people wear wedding rings. Sure, you don't have to, but you do it as a symbol of your identity with the oneness of your marriage partner.I hope these responses are helpful. I'm not sure your objections really undermine the example.

MikeHagger,You're not really seeing the correlation correctly, IMHO.

quote:

---

This is a fine example of why the theistic mindset is so useless in the sciences. Coming to the question of this vitamin spike, the theist sees an example of the hand of their god (and no other in spite of most people in the world believing in some god other then the christian one) and claims a victory for their faith and the support of good science (good science of course being defined as that science the conclusions of which agree with their preconceptions.)

---

It's fair, since I am supporting the claims of the Bible as useful to answer the "whys" that science cannot, that I would explore them, wouldn't you think? Futher, if it is some other religion and God that is true, the point still stands: science on its own does not answer the "why" question in regards to the vitamin K spike. It is a mystery to science divorced from creation claims (choose your creative God with a believeable explanation.)

quote:

---

Now, a real thinker and researcher (one who, if he has faith, is rightly not looking to it for these answers), approaching the same question of the vitamin spike and the day on which circumcisions should be done, might say, "Well, look at that. After a few generations of doing circumcisions the Jews saw that those done on the eighth day after birth turned out better, so they started doing them all on that day. Then, it later got written into their holy books".

---

You have not proven anything at all. I claim that science cannot explain the vitamin K shoot. Your hypothetical does not address this. Even if the Jews figured out the best day after trial and error as opposed to hearing a voice from some creator, that does not explain why the vitamin k shoots up just in males just that day.

contracycle,Why have you belittled my examples? They are good examples. You can reject my claims if you want, but your reasons are not really substantial. If that is how you will object to my claims, I really don't have much else to say, and you have won.

quote:

---

Thats becuase your argument rests almost entirely on semantic manipulation.

---

I make some specific claims with specific examples.

quote:

---

How are miracles possible? -- Subject not in evidence - miracles cannot be shown to exist/happen and cannot be tested. Claim rejected.

---

Oh? Just like that? If I have to test a miracle to prove that it happened, then you have to test the big bang to prove that it happened. Yeah, I know what you will say, "We know we can't prove it." Right, but you choose to believe it then. Then you will say, "Because the evidence suggests that is the best explanation." Fine, but don't reject my claim then. Miracles have been seen to have happened, and that they are miracles is the best explanation. You really do not have any substantial way to reject this simple claim. It is a serious question and a relevent example to the topic. Give it a little more weight please, or we will go nowhere.

quote:

---

What causes people to act unkindly, aggressively, selfishly, etc to one another? -- Self-interest and programming. See other threads. Claim rejected.

---

Excuse me? Do you think nobody cares about this question? Why do you think so much scientific study goes into trying to figure out how the brain is wired and makes people go looney? This is a particularly valid concern for this world, and it is a concern that scientists have looked at over time in various fields. You can't just reject this claim. I am saying that science cannot fully answer that question, and science has tried to answer it as much as it can.

quote:

---

the only way they will be fully explained is through science.

---

Is this prophesy? I thought we didn't do that here?! There are plenty of things that certainly haven't been fully explained by science yet. I think my claim is fair: The Bible answers some of these questions that science has failed to. Now you are making prophetic predictions about what science will do in the future with no evidence that it will. Please be fair with me then!

quote:

---

The spiritual realm affects the physical realm. -- This claim is ridiculous, and I see no reason to accept it without compelling evidence. Please cite such evidence.

---

Well..my whole argument hardly hinges on it. Miracles are an example. And, as we discussed, I have about as much substance to that explanation as you have to the claim that science will answer every question in the future. Subsequestly, perhaps some others would like to explore the existence of miracles a bit more. It might be a little off topic, I don't know.

quote:

---

One that is presented in a very dishonest manner - without controls or citations or references. What exactly is our basis for thinking that vitamin K is any way relevant to the handling of pain or bleeding, such that it might be useful in this context?

---

Dishonest? This is already starting to feel very pointless. Well...FYI, if you really want a published paper about the vitamin K thing: Page not found - Apologetics Press

PaulK,Thanks for the response. A few thoughts...but I am trying to catch up in this thread (I'm the only one on my side) so I'm going to have to let some of it go uncritiqued.

quote:

---

How are miracles possible?
The assumptions here are:
1) That miracles ARE possible
2) That they are scientifically investigable
3) That scientific investigation will not produce the correct answer
4) That the Bible contains the correct answer

---

I am assuming 1). I am not assuming 2) though. In fact, part of my point is that science is ill equipped to handle the existence of miracles. I guess the debate would be, then, whether or not miracles happen. Maybe a new thread is in order for that. Let me just say, though, if you really, truly believe that nothing miraculous and unexplainably otherworldy and mysterious has happened in the history of this world, I guess that is your right. I think it suggests you should check out history books and things in addition to your science books then.

quote:

---

Well science has a lot to say on this one, too. But how can it be shown that the Biblical answer IS correct ?

---

This, my friend, is why Christians are coming onto this forum and suggesting that we have seen a history of evidence that the Bibles claims work out to be true in peoples lives and that they make sense. We were hoping that claim would be enough for you to say, "Ok, let's scrutinize it then and see if it is a useful barometer or not." But you refuse to. I can't make you obviously, but...there it is I guess.

quote:

---

Even assuming that it is entirely correct so far as the scence goes (which I doubt)

---

It's true I'm not much of a scientist, but this is quite verifyable. Do me the honor of not assuming I'm mistaken until you can prove it. I included a link to one such report, and you can do your own research easily too.

quote:

---

It is hard to conclude that the rise on the eight day is FOR the purpose of circumcision.

---

I hardly think that makes my example any less viable for consideration. The question is whether there are questions science can't answer that the Bible can (putting aside if the answers are wrong of verifiable at this point). I have shown with the example that there is a question science can't answer that the Bible does answer. Let us start somewhere please. What I'm trying to suggest is that the Bible is full of answers that science can't answer. It amazes me that you haven't, in your study of science, come up with questions you can't answer with science. Maybe I'm fooling myself, but many of you appear to be groping for answers. I'm suggesting there are some very good ones worth a look.

quote:

---

Giving an example where science is simply lacking or dosen't give a damn dosen't count.

---

Is there some scientific formula I can follow to filter my examples? For example, I'm curious why,

quote:

---

1. Why are there no predators on Barro Colorado?

​

2. Why are there tigers on Bali but not Lompok?

​

3. Why is the venom of Bothrops insularis 3-5 times more toxic than any other member of the Bothrops genus?

​

4. Why are there 23 species of tenrecs on Madagascar, but not one single species found anywhere else in the world, even in similar habitats, even as fossils?

​

5. Explain the disappearance of the once highly diverse orders of ammonites and trilobites. Why did they disappear at different times?

---

passes the "science gives a darn" filter but,Why does a baby's vitamin K shoot up really friggin high only in males only on the 8th daydoesn't pass the "science gives a darn filter?"

MrHambre,A few posts ago I cited a source which has more specifics. Yes, the levels are low the first week, but the point is that on day 8 only, the level shoots up something like a 100% in males only, then goes down to normal levels. This is a temporary spike, so it is more interesting than you thinking. If we were just talking about levels going up after a week and the Jews figuring that out, I agree, it wouldn't be all that special, but that is not what is going on as the report I linked to claims.

In all fairness, Asgara, because non-Christian scientists are uninterested in this reality for some reason or another, they don't tend to put their energy into writing reports about it, so you will have to accept the links I give you on faith that I am being honest or else do more extensive research yourself. I sent you a link as you asked. I can't run around the internet all day and look for them.

quetzal,Thank you for your extensive response to my concerns.

quote:

---

Then please explain the value of an epistemology that - what, randomly? - that is only applicable in certain cases. How are these cases differentiated from others - IOW, how do we know when to use spirit (or whatever)?

---

I was putting the sufficiency of science without the context of Biblical revelation on trial. The fact that certain predators aren't in a certain place is a trivial matter compared to the matters which the Bible considers important. Perhaps we could debate over whether human kindness or predatory migration is more important to our society. Perhaps what is on trial is whether the Bible deals with important questions at all. As you can guess, I would say that it does.

quote:

---

since the phenomena you reference is nonexistent. Or perhaps you have some replicated examples?

---

I notice that this argument comes up quite a bit, but evolutions (in the macro sense) cannot replicate macro evolution. How can you hold me to a standard you do not meet yourself?

quote:

---

I certainly agree that miracles are unaddressable except in the context of the Bible or other religious texts. After all, these phenomena don't have any objective existence, correct? Only subjective experience filtered by reference to the particular religion gives miracles any "reality"

---

Science cannot explain something that defies the natural laws of science. If something defies the natural laws of science, it is unnatural. If that thing occurs, just because science can't explain it, it doesn't mean it didn't occur. For examples of miracles, please look at the Gospels of the Bible which are an accurate historical account. If you disagree that it is not an accurate historical account, that is your right, but you should have some convincing evidence for why it is.

quote:

---

Incorrect. SOME scientists accept a spiritual realm. However, it has no place in their science.

---

OK...for the scientists who say there is a spiritual realm, I would claim that it interacts with the physical realm and we should thus examine it. For the scientists who say there is no spiritual realm, I would claim that there is.

quote:

---

You have not established that the spiritual realm effects the physical.

---

I haven't proved it. But my claim is that we are a physical creation from a spiritual being. That is certainly a connection between the two. I think we all agree at this point that God can't be proven by men. (Though He can prove Himself if He chooses.)

quote:

---

In a scientific context (i.e., the context in which I used it), "why" equates to "what is the cause of..." or "what is the explanation for...". Creationists insist on using "why" to mean "what is the purpose of..." - which is an utterly non-scientific question. Purpose is a subjective valuation that has no place in science. It is not a question that science addresses because it has no meaning for an understanding of the natural world. It actually says more about the worldview of the individual asking the question than it does about truth, hence is useless.

---

My concern is not to suggest that science should be able to answer the "what purpose" questions." Part of my point is that it cannot and that "what purpose" is a valuable question to ask.Also, I don't think I am only asking "what purpose." The Bible makes several claims about "what is the cause of."For example:1) The cause of death is our sinful nature
2) The cause the natural laws of the universe is God forming them