How do science and Scripture relate to each other?

[Deacon]

From the book:
Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation?: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos [LINK]
Edited by Kenneth Keathley, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre


How do science and Scripture relate to each other?

Four possible relationships between science and Scripture (could you add another?)

(1) Separate magisteria with science and scripture unrelated to each other, occupying separate spaces;

(2) Complementarity where the two touch, but don’t overlap much;

(3) Fusion with science and Scripture occupying the same space; and

(4) Constructive integration with considerable overlap – but not total.​

Where would you place yourself within this structure?

Rob

 

[InTheLight]

I'm going to fudge my answer and say 1 1/2. There simply isn't much science in the Bible.

 

[TCassidy]

I would not be on that paradigm.

God's word is absolute.

Science is not.

Science is continually changing. Science gathers data and, from that data, draws a conclusion. When additional data is gathered the conclusion is often changed.

For instance, when I was in school, back in the early 1950s, the scientific conclusion drawn from the available data of that time was that another ice age was coming.

However, increasing global temperatures seem to contradict that earlier conclusion, so the conventional scientific conclusion is that of global warming with the additional conclusion that such warming is anthropogenic (man caused).

However, it is now known that global temperature increases leveled off about 20 years ago and no further warming trends are evident. And over 30,000 climate scientists now say that global warming is not anthropogenic but rather may have been the result of the peaking of sun spot activity. (Contributing to this new conclusion is the fact that the ice caps on Mars are shrinking at a greater rate than earth's - which is obviously not anthropogenic.)

So, comparing an absolute, such as God's word, which is unchanging, with always changing science, is an exercise in futility.

By the way, science is designed to be ever changing. If it never changed it would not be science. The most idiotic statement I have ever heard from ignorant people is "The science is settled." Science is never settled. It is constantly acquiring new data and forming new conclusions.

 

[Deacon]

I would not be on that paradigm.

God's word is absolute.

Science is not.

Science is continually changing. Science gathers data and, from that data, draws a conclusion. When additional data is gathered the conclusion is often changed.

You're comparing two unequal things

A true comparison would be Science and Theology - both are interpretations

Science interprets natural phenomena;
Theology interprets Scripture​

Both are man's attempts to understand a work of God,
Both are subject to error and misinterpretation.

I'd place myself in #1 or perhaps #2

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

From the book:
Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation?: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos [LINK]
Edited by Kenneth Keathley, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre


How do science and Scripture relate to each other?

Four possible relationships between science and Scripture (could you add another?)

(1) Separate magisteria with science and scripture unrelated to each other, occupying separate spaces;

(2) Complementarity where the two touch, but don’t overlap much;

(3) Fusion with science and Scripture occupying the same space; and

(4) Constructive integration with considerable overlap – but not total.​

Where would you place yourself within this structure?

Rob

That if there is ever a situation where assumed/accepted scientific facts clash with the scriptures, such as in a real Adam/Eve, no evolution, a literal Genesis , always take the view of inspired scripture! real science will never conflict with scriptures !

 

[TCassidy]

Science interprets natural phenomena;
Theology interprets Scripture

Correct. Science interprets nature.

But Theology does not interpret Scripture.

Scripture establishes Theology.

You have the cart before the horse.

 

[TCassidy]

real science will never conflict with scriptures !

Real science is observational and repeatable. We did not observe Creation, but the sole observer told us what happened.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Correct. Science interprets nature.

But Theology does not interpret Scripture.

Scripture establishes Theology.

You have the cart before the horse.

Very well stated, sir.

 

[Yeshua1]

Real science is observational and repeatable. We did not observe Creation, but the sole observer told us what happened.

True. I was just suggesting that when say evolution and scriptures clash, we need to trust in the inspired source, and nor Charles Darwin!

 

[Deacon]

I would not be on that paradigm.

I understand what you're saying

...but the Scriptures still need to be interpreted as natural phenomenon also require interpretation.
​

For what it's worth (not much) I'd place you in category #3 with the stipulation that YOUR understanding of Scripture exceeds SCIENTISTS explanations of natural phenomena.

Rob

​

 

[JonC]

I understand what you're saying

...but the Scriptures still need to be interpreted as natural phenomenon also require interpretation.
​

For what it's worth (not much) I'd place you in category #3 with the stipulation that YOUR understanding of Scripture exceeds SCIENTISTS explanations of natural phenomena.

Rob

​

Theology is the study of God. It is absolute because it is driven by its Subject, the issue being whether it is correct or incorrect theology. If incorrect, then it really isn't theology. Now....systematic theology.......

 

[Yeshua1]

From the book:
Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation?: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos [LINK]
Edited by Kenneth Keathley, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre


How do science and Scripture relate to each other?

Four possible relationships between science and Scripture (could you add another?)

(1) Separate magisteria with science and scripture unrelated to each other, occupying separate spaces;

(2) Complementarity where the two touch, but don’t overlap much;

(3) Fusion with science and Scripture occupying the same space; and

(4) Constructive integration with considerable overlap – but not total.​

Where would you place yourself within this structure?

Rob

How about when the 2 ever conflict, the scriptures are right?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Science attempts to tell us how God did as he did. Scripture tells us why God did as he did.

 

[Alcott]

Science attempts to tell us how God did as he did. Scripture tells us why God did as he did.

Is that so? Scripture tells us in Genesis 1:1 that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Where does it tell us WHY he did?

 

[Deacon]

How about when the 2 ever conflict, the scriptures are right?

Galileo might have problems with that!

Rob

 

[Crabtownboy]

Is that so? Scripture tells us in Genesis 1:1 that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Where does it tell us WHY he did?

Isaiah 43:6b–7, “Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth, everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.”

 

[Sapper Woody]

I believe that science and scripture are perfectly compatible, two sides of a coin. I believe that scripture is absolute truth. I believe that science can come to true conclusions. I've said it before, but scripture and science are perfectly in harmony; if they do not agree, then your understanding of one or the other is wrong.

 

[Alcott]

Isaiah 43:6b–7, “Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth, everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.”

If that is why he created the heavens and the earth, it brings other questions. Is the earth, and the heavens, subject to humans, if that's why he created them? They're all for us,.whatever we choose to do with them? Do whatever we want with the animals, the trees, the waters,...? WE are the reason these things exist,, according to your answer.

 

[church mouse guy]

Theology is the queen of the sciences. [Science is] “Thinking God’s thoughts after Him” Johann Kepler (1571-1630).

 

[Yeshua1]

Galileo might have problems with that!

Rob

How so?