I'm trying to understand the thought process of those who believe the bible is inerrant. It seems to stem from a willingness to believe the claims of other humans that what they say is derived inerrantly from the "source" of the universe. When that material is challenged the believer doesn't say that such and such a person who made this claim must have made a mistake, rather they say something like "God doesn't lie". There are so many different and conflicting claims about religion. Individuals pick an authority based on several factors that influence how comfortable they are with that belief system.
I'm also observing that those who base their beliefs on acceptance of an "authority" assume science works the same way as religion. Somewhere there is an authority but of course they have to be wrong. Science however is a process and one that is acknowledged to be a human process. Scientists are accountable. Priest are not accountable they claim their viewpoints were given them by a deity.
Evolution is a theory. It is a good theory as it has generated a lot of good research. Someday it may be supplanted, evidence warranting, and a new paradigm may emerge. But this paradigm must emerge from facts, experiments, data and not from one or more ancient myths.
Unlike the pronouncements of priest, prophets, or channelers, science doesn't make claims of absolute certainty, and it is more difficult to understand. Over the course of history people have developed (evolved) religion to suit their habits of mind and imagination. And it does seem to function helpfully in some regards in the community and family though exceptions where fanaticism leads to irresponsibility or conflicts exist. Perhaps the worst disfunctions being the kinds of religious conflicts seen at present in the middle east and Indian.
The book THE BIBLE UNEARTHED draws on recent archeology to piece together the history emerging as more and more data is literally dug up in that part of the world. The viewpoint I take from the current research is that the books of the bible were written by the priests of the Jerusalem Temple whose god was called Yahwah. And they wanted a monopoly on religion at least in Judah and Israel. And to answer those who questioned the power of Yahwah when for example Babylon triumphed over their nation they argued that the people were being punished because they hadn't given the Yahwist priests a monopoly but had broken various laws they had set up claiming they were Yahwah's laws.
These religious institutions Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Morman and on and on continue to this day because they serve peoples needs. And they serve people's needs in India, Iran, America even though the predominant myths of each of those countries are different.
These myths offer no basis for science. The activity of science comes from observation and experimentation in the physical universe. Working with science means working with actual data not with the works of ancient imagination.
I don't think Steve has quite grasped this difference. Folks from different religions will argue about their beliefs attempting to convert one another. Scientist argue about interpretation of data and theories attempting to convince one another by fact based logic. Results not religous authority is what matters. Attaining a Ph.D. means someone did a lot of work. But it's not enough to find someone with a Ph.D. who out of religious considerations give opinions that fit with ones beliefs. Any group of scientists could be wrong and yet science as an activity continues and corrects past errors.
At one point there were two competing theories about the origins of homo sapiens but as the evidence grew the african origin theory has the preponderance of the evidence. There is more and more emerging about the history of Palestine. It supports some of the accounts in the Bible to some extent but contradicts a lot also. The human activity of science is not claimed at any time to be inerrant. I suspect that that is what many find so unappealing about the scientific approach. Fundamentalist approaches to religion offers certainty and inerrancy. That may be the neccessary and sufficient selling point for the believer whether it's true or not they can at least "believe" they have the absolute certainty that they crave and that they will never find in the fertile rich but honestly human activity of science. I don't see how there can be real debate given the very different needs being sought in these two incompatible ways of looking at the universe.
peace,
lfen
™ Version 4.2