>>No, the words in 1 Timothy 6:20 which King James translated as “science so-called” are better translated “falsely called knowledge” and refer to the Greek “gnosis”, meaning a false knowledge of the divine.
It has nothing to do with our understandings of science. Elsewhere the Bible says nothing, nada, about what we understand as modern science.”
Why the misdirection? Again, the Bible is loaded with science, for example:
1) The Bible teaches us that the universe, and everything in it, was created in 6 days; and that God stretched out the heavens. That not only explains redshift, but the phenomena called “quantized” red shifts, thousands of years before the telescope (Isa 40:22).
2) The Bible teaches us that there are ocean currents, thousands of years before a 19th century scientist discovered them (Ps 8:8).
3) The Bible teaches us that the stars of the Pleiades are gravitational bound, thousands of years before modern scientists discovered it (Job 38:31).
4) The Bible teaches us that animals and plants are bound within their respective kinds (e.g, evolution is a hoax,) which biochemists and geneticists are only now beginning to understand (Gen 1:21).
5) The Bible teaches us that the earth hangs on nothing (Job 26:7).
And so forth. The Bible is loaded with scientific gems.
***********************
>>Your speaker at the link you posted complained that these explanations are being presented in the media and schools as “facts” when they are nothing of the sort. If he’s correct, then it’s a valid point.
They are presented as facts, and they have been all of my old life. This is a recent textbook example:
“The first genetic material was most likely RNA, not DNA. RNA plays a central role in protein synthesis, but it can also function as an enzyme-like catalyst (see Concept 17.3). Such RNA catalysts are called ribozymes. Some ribozymes can make complementary copies of short pieces of RNA, provided that they are supplied with nucleotide building blocks.
“Natural selection on the molecular level has produced ribozymes capable of self-replication in the laboratory. How does this occur? Unlike double-stranded DNA, which takes the form of a uniform helix, single-stranded RNA molecules assume a variety of specific three-dimensional shapes mandated by their nucleotide sequences. In a given environment, RNA molecules with certain nucleotide sequences may have shapes that enable them to replicate faster and with fewer errors than other sequences. The RNA molecule with the greatest ability to replicate itself will leave the most descendant molecules. Occasionally, a copying error will result in a molecule with a shape that is even more adept at self-replication. Similar selection events may have occurred on early Earth. Thus, life as we know it may have been preceded by an ‘RNA world,’ in which small RNA molecules were able to replicate and to store genetic information about the vesicles that carried them.
“In 2013, Dr. Jack Szostak and colleagues succeeded in building a vesicle in which copying of a template strand of RNA could occur—a key step towards constructing a vesicle with self-replicating RNA. On early Earth, a vesicle with such self-replicating, catalytic RNA would differ from its many neighbors that lacked such molecules. If that vesicle could grow, split, and pass its RNA molecules to its ‘daughters,’ the daughters would be protocells. Although the first such protocells likely carried only limited amounts of genetic information, specifying only a few properties, their inherited characteristics could have been acted on by natural selection. The most successful of the early protocells would have increased in number because they could exploit their resources effectively and pass their abilities on to subsequent generations. Once RNA sequences that carried genetic information appeared in protocells, many additional changes would have been possible. For example, RNA could have provided the template on which DNA nucleotides were assembled. Double-stranded DNA is a more chemically stable repository for genetic information than is the more fragile RNA. DNA also can be replicated more accurately. Accurate replication was advantageous as genomes grew larger through gene duplication and other processes and as more properties of the protocells became coded in genetic information. Once DNA appeared, the stage was set for a blossoming of new forms of life—a change we see documented in the fossil record.” [Self-Replicating RNA, in, Urry et al, “Campbell Biology.” Pearson, 11th Ed, 2017, Chap.25.1, p.526]”
That is pure 100% propaganda, and is typical of textbooks. Nearly all push the Miller-Urey experiment as if it was a big deal, rather than a dud.
***********************
>>But it remains a fact that nothing in the Bible speaks directly to our understanding of science.
The Bible is historically and scientifically accurate. If you had believed the word of God, in particular his creation and flood histories, you would not have been so easily brainwashed by promoters of evolutionism and the big-bang.
***********************
>>[Astromers] have tons & tons of “clues” — meaning confirmed observations = facts — from which they’ve formed the best explanations available. These explanations cover both the “how” and “when”, but indeed in this sense you are 100% correct: they have no clues as to “who” and “why”. By definition, such questions are beyond the scope of natural-science..
Big Bang theorists are little more than hole-patchers. The existence of mature galaxies and galactic super clusters in deep space is a mighty big monkey wrench, even if you ignore the problems with the CMB, such as the “Axis of Evil”. Further, they have no clue how to predict the age of the universe; and the highly imaginative speculation about the formation of the first star is, at best, a cosmic fairy tale.
It makes good theater, but not much else.
Mr. Kalamata
Kalamata:
"And so forth.
The Bible is loaded with scientific gems." Sure, but the Bible nowhere says that science itself is evil.
Kalamata: "They are presented as facts, and they have been all of my old life. This is a recent textbook example:"
- "...was most likely..."
- "..may have shapes . ..."
- "...events may have occurred..."
- "...may have been preceded..."
- "...catalytic RNA would differ..."
- "...If that vesicle could..."
- "...daughters would be protocells..."
- "...protocells likely carried only limited..."
- "...early protocells would have increased..."
- "... many additional changes would have been possible..."
- "...RNA could have provided the template..."
- "...the stage was set for a blossoming of new forms of life..."
Kalamata:
"That is pure 100% propaganda, and is typical of textbooks." Sorry, but as you can see, I found no speculation presented as "facts".
Kalamata: "Nearly all push the Miller-Urey experiment as if it was a big deal, rather than a dud."
Certainly Miller-Urey was a big deal if, as your man Tour claims, nothing more significant has been done since.
Kalamata: "The Bible is historically and scientifically accurate.
If you had believed the word of God, in particular his creation and flood histories, you would not have been so easily brainwashed by promoters of evolutionism and the big-bang."
The Bible itself nowhere claims to be "scientifically accurate", and it's impossible that it should, since the Bible's whole purpose in being to demonstrate God's rule over nature.
The Bible is not trying to accurately portray nature as it is, but rather to show God's mastery of nature.
To God it's irrelevant whether we agree "scientifically" with the Bible, what matters is we agree that God rules over whatever we think science tells us today.
Kalamata: "Further, they have no clue how to predict the age of the universe..."
In fact they have several different methodologies, all of which roughly agree.
The current estimate of 13.8 billion years is simply considered the best of the group. ![]()