Creationist Wisdom #435: Science in the Bible

Today’s letter-to-the-editor is actually a column, but we’ll treat it as just another letter, because that’s what it deserves. The thing appears in the Daily Journal of Park Hills, Missouri. It has an inspirational title: Looking to the Creator for answers.

We don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures), but in this case the author is a regular columnist for that publication. Her name is Jennie Whitmer. One of her earlier columns was discussed in Creationist Wisdom #361: No Compromises. We’ll give you a few excerpts from her latest opus, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

I recently received another letter concerning the stance that I and other believers take against the theory of evolution being presented as truth, which it is not. The danger is that this collection of ideas is in opposition to the word of God, and that they ignore or try to discount genuine evidence and scientific discoveries which verify God’s word as being true and trustworthy.

This is a promising start. Jennie is going to give us her evidence. She says:

In answer to one of the issues that was raised, about science superseding the Bible, I’d like to point out a few things (among many) which science finally “discovered,” only to find out that God, knowing it all the time, had already published their “new” finding. Consider the “seed” of woman mentioned in Gen. 3:15. It took the electronic microscope to determine that the unique cell which actually formed a baby, came from the woman and not the man.

Let’s examine that “evidence” in context. This is from the King James version of Genesis, of course. We’ll put the “seed” data in bold:

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

You may decide, dear reader, the value of that biological information, which describes the divine enmity between the serpent’s seed and the woman’s. We continue with Jennie’s column:

In Job 26:7 we find that “God hangeth the earth upon nothing.” As you may know there were several theories about how the earth was supported before the real truth surfaced. I believe it was sometime after Columbus when it became known that you could go as far as you wanted and there would be no danger of falling off the end of the world.

The erroneous nonsense about Columbus and the flat Earth isn’t worth our time. As for that cosmological insight from the book of Job, we’ve discussed it before, in The Earth Does Not Move!, where we said:

It’s the same earth that the same book of Job says has a place and rests on pillars (Job 9:6 — “Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.”), and that also has a foundation (Job 38:4 — “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth”).

So what does the book of Job tell us? Does the Earth “hangeth” upon nothing, or does it rest on pillars and sit on a foundation? Aside from the book of Job, there are other scriptural passages on the same topic, e.g.: “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and He has set the world upon them” (1 Samuel 2:8).

What other scriptural wonders does Jennie have for us? She offers this:

How about the recycling of water? To condense the story (no pun intended) I will use the scripture of Job 26:8 – “He bindeth up the water in His thick clouds.”

Water in clouds? That would be apparent to anyone who has ever seen a rainstorm, or walked through a thick fog. Besides, in that passage it’s Job speaking, not God. Here’s that part of Job:26 in context:

4 To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose spirit came from thee?

5 Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.

6 Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.

7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.

9 He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it.

10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

That’s quite a pile of science! Instead of telling us about the water cycle in that uselessly cryptic fashion, it would have been far more useful if the bible had told us about bacteria, but for some reason it didn’t.

Jennie babbles on a bit more, but we’ve already covered the good stuff. Here’s how she ends her column:

I hope to address the other issues raised by my anonymous friend another time, and I hope all who have questions will look to the Creator for answers, for who would know better than Him?

We look forward to learning more from Jennie about science in scripture.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

22 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #435: Science in the Bible

  1. Lemme see . . .

    (a) It took the electronic microscope to determine that the unique cell which actually formed a baby, came from the woman and not the man

    I assume she’s trying to say “electron microscope”. Did it really take the ability to investigate at the submolecular level to make this determination?

    (b) In the verse Gen. 3:15, the word seed is used in its sense of “offspring”, “lineage” . . . Nothing to do with ova here.

  2. If the sky fairy needs support from the likes of Jennie Whitmer, it’s in serious trouble.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    Notice how she restricted herself to observational science, full well knowing that evolutionists will not accept her historical science references.

  4. To any consequent thinker, it’s somewhat awkward that the science in the Holey Babble (and other holey sources) is only ever there retrospectively. I suppose it has much to do with the confusion that attends The First (and Only) Law of Exe- and Eisegesis:

    For every verse, there is an equal and opposite reverse.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    If the Bible were a science book, wouldn’t it have an appendix of tables and equations. How are we supposed to do our science homework without an appendix?

  6. So did Eve try to mate with the snake, “15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;…?

    And this doesn’t make much sense, “…it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

    But this sort of drivel is what’s driving the right-wingers and they want to teach this nonsense as science in the schools. Hey, if it’s good enough for the fundy parochial schools, it’s good enough for the public schools.

  7. Karl Ernst von Baer discovered the mammalian ovum in 1826, and Edar Allen described the human ovum in 1828, according to the Wikipedia article on Baer.

  8. @DavidK

    And this doesn’t make much sense

    The sense of the word “seed” in the verse is “offspring”, “descendants” (as in oodles of other places throughout the Bible); so what God’s saying is that humans and serpents will forever be at odds through humans having the nasty habit of standing on the serpents’ heads and them rotten ol’ serpents biting the humans’ heels. It’s only because famed Biblivcal expert Jennie Whitmer has misread the meaning of the word that the rest of the verse seems confusing.

  9. “upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life”

    I didn’t know snakes ate dust! Wow, the Bible clearly MUST be the word of God.

  10. @Sean: It’s dust bunnies that some snakes eat. Although I think they prefer regular meat bunnies.

  11. Highly impressive. I would have been impressed even more if the Bible somewhere contained references to the America’s, to the GPS-system and indeed to bacteria. Instead it has problems to get the value of pi correct.

  12. Tell me, Jennie, where does your Bible tell us of plate tectonics? And galaxies? And dinosaurs? And… well, you get the drift here.

  13. where does your Bible tell us of plate tectonics? And galaxies? And dinosaurs? And… well, you get the drift here.

    “Drift”! Geddit!!??!!

  14. correction
    Edgar Allen discovered the human ovum in 1928.

  15. “I hope all who have questions will look to the Creator for answers, for who would know better than Him?”

    Even if He had all the answers He also has a pretty terrible track record as a communicator. Which is why people who spend their lives with their noses buried in His book seem to only be able to make sense of these supposed scientific revelations well after the fact. In short, the Bible is so oblique that even with millions of readers and several centuries’ head start scientists have beaten theologians to the punch on every discovery.

  16. Make that oblique, not obtuse.

    [*Voice from above*] It is done!

  17. There’s so much material here, one does not know where to begin! I think my favorite was the revelation that evolution is simply a “collection of ideas”.

  18. Harrison: “In short, the Bible is so oblique that even with millions of readers and several centuries’ head start scientists have beaten theologians to the punch on every discovery.”

    Well, waddiya expect?? There were no technical writers back in the day.

    (BTW, “obtuse” would have worked also. So would “obfuscatory”. [Which itself is an obfuscatory word.] )

  19. realthog: ““Drift”! Geddit!!??!!’

    That’s so… Continental!

  20. And bonus points if you can name the 1934 Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers flick for which The Continental was written.

  21. “The Gay Divorcee”.

  22. TomS: “Edgar Allen discovered the human ovum in 1928.”

    And Poe invented the “electronic microscope.” ;-)