Creationist Wisdom #793: The Bible Is True

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Rome News-Tribune of Rome, Georgia. The title is Science vs. religion complicated question , and the newspaper has a comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Ira. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

To solve a problem, the problem must first be clearly defined. The phrase “science vs. religion” fails on several accounts. As a minimum, it doesn’t identify what science or what religion.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, it makes a big difference if we’re talking about astronomy or biology, and if we’re contrasting that with Christianity or Hinduism. Then he says:

Science is founded on the ability to test and observe. For example, if one states that water at sea level boils at 212 F, the statement can be tested any number of times. While this is a simple example, the principle applies even to the most complex scientific statement.

That’s a bit simplistic, but we’ll let it go. However, for more rigorous usage we recommend the definitions is provided by the National Academy of Sciences: Definitions of Evolutionary Terms. There’s also this: Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions. The National Center for Science Education has definitions right here.

After that beginning, Ira tells us:

But when one wishes to determine when something first came into existence (origin), who observed it and how can one test it? For origins, one can only observe evidence in the present and interpret such evidence as to its meaning for the past. Plus, one must first establish suppositions by which the evidence is to be interpreted.

[*Groan*] Ira is repeating one of the most common creationist distortions — Ken Ham’s re-definition of science itself. See Creationism and Science, in which we discuss ol’ Hambo’s bizarre distinction between historical and observational science, with the result that science — as defined by him — can’t tell us anything about the past. But it’s easily rebutted — see The Lessons of Tiktaalik. Ira continues:

The op-ed by George B. Reed Jr. published in the Aug. 5 issue of Rome News-Tribune fails to recognize the nature of science and misrepresents the problem he writes about, and he uses several straw man arguments.

Ira is probably talking about this: An old controversy revisited. It’s the sort of thing that would infuriate a creationist, so Ira attempts to debunk it. Now the fun begins:

He [Reed] states, “the Bible was never intended to be a scientific or archeological document.” True, it is a history document. He writes, “it (the Bible) was written in the symbolic, pre-scientific language of the day, and in parables, allegories, myths, etc.”

Here’s Ira’s rebuttal:

It was written primarily as historical narrative, it does not include myths, and being the word of God, wherever it touches on any scientific topic, it is truth.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] It’s The Truth. Let’s read on:

He [Reed] includes the canard “They all (Old Testament writers) seem to have written from a flat-earth perspective.” This red-herring has been refuted many times by both Jewish and Christian scholars.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! See The Earth Is Flat! Another excerpt:

Then Mr. Reed offers a solution to the problem of “science vs. religion:” He states: “Science tells us what, when and how; the Bible tells us who and why.”

Ira doesn’t like that either, as he explains in the rest of his letter:

He fails to recognize that the Bible tells us what, when, how, who, and why and that for origins, science cannot tell us what, when, how, who or why — it can only spin scenarios based on naturalism.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Naturalism is so inferior compared to super-naturalism!

Well, dear reader, there you have it. The good people of Rome, Georgia now have much to think about. And so do you.

Copyright © 2017. 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

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #793: The Bible Is True

  1. What is wrong with these people? If they think the Bible is an historical document, corroborate it. Show how the Bible agrees with other histories as to who did what when. Like how all of the historians of that time who commented on every two bit claimant to being a messiah (there were many), failed to mention Jesus, their boy. I would add that those historians “were there” was he?

    On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:38 AM, The Sensuous Curmudgeon wrote:

    > The Curmudgeon posted: “Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Rome > News-Tribune of Rome, Georgia. The title is Science vs. religion > complicated question , and the newspaper has a comments section. Because > the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure,” >

  2. “how can one test it?”
    Eeehh, dear Ira, whether it’s possible that something came first into existence is exactly what’s tested in labs these days. Btw I’m sure that at some point you came into existence as well. It’s a typical trait of newborns – about 9 months before they came into existence. It’s even at the core of the pro-forced-birth position.

  3. So, tell us, what, when, where, why, how microbes came to be, according to the Bible – they account for the majority of life, by any measure.

  4. Then Mr. Reed offers a solution to the problem of “science vs. religion:” He states: “Science tells us what, when and how; the Bible tells us who and why.”

    Yup, just as my parents told me who (Santa Claus) ate the cookies I’d left out for him the night before and why (he was hungry).

  5. @Matt
    Yes, even children expect some answers about Santa Claus .- Where he comes from, about the elves who make the toys, how he delivers the toys, …

  6. Michael Fugate

    And how does he eat that many cookies and drink that much milk?

  7. Answering Michael Fugate: He can eat all those cookies and drink all that milk because he is supernatural. All those supernatural beings can do things like that – have you lost your belief?

  8. Ceteris Paribus

    Ira avers:

    “[T]he Bible tells us what, when, how, who, and why and that for origins, science cannot tell us what, when, how, who or why — it can only spin scenarios based on naturalism.”

    Poor Ira – he’s talking the talk of Al Mohler and other would-be Bible creationists. But Ira and Mohler will probably never reach the wisdom found by Macbeth, who, only at his own end, recognized the fallacy of believing in “belief”.

    “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.”

    Here’s the key: Ira’s ““WHY” gambit properly belongs only to the subject of the biblical field of “Hermeneutics”. Which only legitimately concerns only the interpretation of texts. Ira has confused that field with the word “Heuristics” – which is the proper term for concerns of the rules deployed toward discovery, or problem-solving. Which we legitimally also just call “science”.

  9. And why does he rely on transportation to bring the toys. Yes, I realize that the sleigh and the reindeer are also supernatural, but space and time are natural, so he doesn’t need to take account of them by travelling through space in time – indeed, what does it mean for a supernatural being to travel through space in time?
    Sorry for taking this so seriously.

  10. But when one wishes to determine when something first came into existence (origin), who observed it and how can one test it? For origins, one can only observe evidence in the present and interpret such evidence as to its meaning for the past. Plus, one must first establish suppositions by which the evidence is to be interpreted.

    But who observed the creation of the universe? “Why, God, of course,” creationists answer. “It says so right in the Bible, which is the inerrant Word of God.”

    Ahem. The Bible, including Genesis, was written by human beings. It says so right in Genesis, which is written not in first-person (first-Person?) but in the third person. “And God said, Let there be light!”

    And about those “suppositions”: creationists start, and have always started, with the “supposition” that the Bible is true exactly as written (except, of course, when that would be ridiculous even to them), even if that means invoking miracles for which the only explanation is “God did it,” while those wicked God-denying Darwinists start with the idea that natural phenomena have natural causes and go on to work out what those causes were, even if that means making mistakes along the way. Which approach is more likely to yield genuine information about reality?