Creationists believe that the bible, a 2000 year old collection of religious teachings, is more scientifically accurate than any modern academic textbook. Even some Christians who accept evolution have been known to argue for the accuracy of their holy book, contending that it spoke of scientific truths like gravity long before humanity discovered them. Should we be consulting the bible to figure out a renewable energy source, or are these claims perhaps mistaken? There are too many websites, books and videos devoted to these alleged scientific accuracies to all be covered here, but a few examples will be considered from one site in particular, GodAndScience.org, as we examine the evidence and consistency of science in the bible.

I. Crappy Christian Cosmology

The first claim made by the author appears in the introduction, referencing Job 38:33 as 'evidence' for heliocentrism in the bible:

The full text of Job 38:33 (NAS) reads, "Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, or fix their rule over the earth?" Other translations, like the NIV, render the second half as, "Can you set up God's dominion over the earth?" Apparently the passage has a word in Hebrew that may either be translated as "his" (God) or "their" (the heavens), so the author's quotation is misleading, especially since the verse involves God challenging Job's authority, not a declarative statement about fixing the heavens to rule over the earth.

The cosmos in the biblical age.

There is also a second possible meaning to how the heavens might "fix their rule over the earth". The old cosmological model accepted by most people in the biblical age featured a flat earth covered by a dome of sky, called the firmament. The stars, or heavens, were literally fixed to the firmament, as we read in other passages: "He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth..." (Genesis 1:16-17) "...let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." (Gen. 1:20) "God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven." (Gen. 1:7-8) This interpretation would be fully consistent with the thinking of the time, and it has far stronger scriptural support, as is indicated still elsewhere in other passages like Job 9:6, which refers to the earth resting on "pillars" (see image to the left). Ironically, Job 38:33 serves more to expose the bible's antiquated understanding of science, rather than prove its miraculous accuracy.

The first listed claim in the article is that time had a beginning. Going into the specific scriptures for this allegation is pointless, because of how ridiculously common it is. Ancient Egyptians believed time had a beginning, as did the Greeks and probably any other culture with creation myths, yet you won't find anyone crediting those religions with scientific accuracy. The beginning of time is frequently invoked in a poetic fashion to stress the extreme duration of something. Particularly in the ancient world, the longevity of a being, belief or idea has often been taken as some measure of importance or power. This is why some religions still argue today about being 'the oldest in the history of the world'. The three bible verses quoted by the author in the article mention time's beginning in precisely this way, emphasizing the antiquity of Christ and God. No profound scientific insight here, only poetic and literary motifs common throughout the ancient world.

Claim number two is that the universe had a beginning. While the bible does state that there was a beginning, science is not so conclusive. The Big Bang is a theory on the origins of space and time as we currently understand them, but physicists are entertaining many ideas about what might have preceded the Big Bang, if anything. The cyclic model proposes that there is an endless series of oscillating universes that go from a Big Bang to a Big Crunch. The multiverse theory suggests that there are numerous universes existing simultaneously, perhaps with no single one being a true beginning. These are simply ideas and speculation at this point, but saying that science has proven the universe had a beginning is no different. What is more interesting is the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but may only change forms. Considering that we've never known a universe without energy (the Big Bang itself was a release of energy), I do not think we are yet at a point where the infinite universe concept can really be discarded. Nonetheless, the beginning of the universe is also an idea inherent to every religion with a creation myth. If we find the universe did, in fact, have a beginning, it would no more validate Christianity than the religions of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and so on.

The author's next couple claims are sheerly ridiculous assumptions, dealing with the universe's creation from "the invisible" and the creation of dimensions. No sources are provided to substantiate how these accord with science, and in the case of the latter, Romans 8:38-39 is referenced, which merely names height and depth. Did it really take the supernatural assistance of a god for people to notice that objects have height and depth? Moving on to something a bit less absurd, the author next states that the bible predicted the expansion of the universe. However, all the passages cited simply refer to God 'stretching out the heavens', which seems a lot more like God pulling sky across the firmament under the old cosmological model, instead of the universe expanding outward.

In the next claim, Genesis 2:3-4 is referenced to argue that the creation of matter and energy ended in the universe... with God resting on the seventh day. The funny thing is that our author neglects to address the other side of the law of conservation, which is that matter and energy cannot be destroyed either. This is specifically interesting because he goes on to cite another bible passage and claim it as evidence for the "heat death" of the universe. Additionally, the author names the second law of thermodynamics, which only applies to a closed system. The significance of this is that if he believes the universe to be a closed system, then he must accept the first law of thermodynamics too, which is that energy is neither created nor destroyed in a closed system - leaving him with an eternal universe, not one to be created or destroyed by God's vengeful hand.

Of the remaining cosmological claims, the only ones truly worth mentioning are the suggestions that Earth is a sphere and that it hangs in space. For the first one, Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:10 are cited:

The "circle of the earth" once again fits in the old cosmological model too, as ancient societies like the Babylonians (which the book of Genesis borrowed a fair amount from) believed Earth to be a flat disc or circle. It could also be pointed out that Earth is not a perfect circle. The remark about the horizon is tremendously vague and unimpressive too, as it could be easily observed and recorded by anyone in antiquity, without probably realizing its significance in the overall shape of the earth. Lastly, Job 26:7 says God "suspends the earth over nothing", seventeen chapters after saying that the earth is fixed in place, resting on pillars (Job 9:6). If one is metaphor, why not the other? Cherry picking your verses for scientific accuracy is special pleading.

II. Earth Sciences for Idiots

First among the earth science claims is the watery state of our planet in its early years. One wonders why God couldn't put something truly miraculous about the formation of Earth, such as gravity bringing together debris to create the molten lava state of the very early earth, which later cooled to form solid crust. Instead we get a water planet, which is also mentioned in Islam's holy book, as well as the old cosmological model, where the flat disc of Earth is surrounded by waters. Once again, this interpretation makes more sense, given the time period and the fact that Genesis 1:7-8 refers to waters above the sky (or firmament). GodAndScience.org needs to consider the big picture given in the whole bible to really see where it stands scientifically, not just extract specific verses from their context in order to give the semblance of accuracy.

The next claim we'll look at deals with the water cycle:

Some may find this passage to be impressive because it appears to mention evaporation and the role clouds play in rain, which were obviously not well known in the 8th century BC time period or before, when Job was written. However, it's important not just to focus on chronology with these claims, but also on the difficulty required to describe the natural phenomena. Is it something anyone could possibly observe with ease, without even needing to understand the science behind it? There is no magic in noticing the correspondence of rain to clouds, and some idea of evaporation would be surprising for a tribe of desert nomads to miss, if they have ever seen pools or containers of water shrink and mist away in the heat. In Genesis 7:11, we are told that "the windows of heaven were opened" to produce Noah's flood. Once again, how is our author differentiating between metaphor and non-metaphor?

"Then the channels of the sea appeared," reads 2 Samuel 22:16, taken in the article as evidence of valleys at the bottom of the sea. Channels are synonymous with valleys? Channels in water are generally thought of as currents, not valleys, and spotting the way that water moves in a river or sea is not too hard for a human to manage, even in the biblical days. "Have you entered into the springs of the sea, Or walked in the recesses of the deep?" we find in Job 38:16, taken in the article as evidence for oceanic vents. Recesses of the deep are synonymous with vents? I don't think it's unfair to say that if presented with claims this vague in any other religion, Christians would heartily and rightfully dismiss them. There's just nothing of real substance here.

For the last two claims in the earth sciences category, we learn that the bible says wind has weight (Job 28:25) and it also blows in circular paths (Ecclesiastes 1:6). Of course, elsewhere it says that God keeps the wind in "treasuries" or "storehouses" (Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13), but that must be metaphorical, because it doesn't fit with modern science. Isn't it amazing how much of the author's citations for scientific accuracy come from the books of Job and Isaiah, which are well known for their prose and poetic language? It almost seems designed.

III. Bad Bible Biology

The first claim under biology is that the bible shows human life has a "chemical nature". The verses used in support of this are too rich to be left unquoted, so here they are in all their glory:

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the bible tells us that humans are formed from dust, and the last I checked, dust is made up of particles, not chemicals. In case you may be wondering, credible evidence for our composition or creation out of dust has yet to surface, though there is a wealth of evidence that we have evolved from primitive ape-like ancestors. You may not like being considered a primate, but would you really prefer dust instead?

In the next claim, the author contends that Leviticus 17:11 proves that the life of human beings is in our blood. However, Genesis 2:7 says that it was with the breath of life that God breathed into Adam's nostrils that he became a living being. Job 33:4 further states, "the breath of the Almighty gives me life," and Ezekiel 37:5-6 also reinforces this view:

Unfortunately for both interpretations, life is not so easily defined by breath or blood. A brain dead patient kept on machines to regulate blood flow and oxygen is more of an empty shell than a living being. There are many facets of our biology that contribute to our status as living beings, not simply our blood, breath, etc.

The final examples of 'scientific accuracy' in the bible are about infectious diseases and the importance of sanitation. In the case of diseases, Leviticus 13:46 only mentions isolating infected individuals from the rest of the camp. There's nothing spectacular about this, as one in those days could easily notice a similar infection among members of the tribe and infer contagion. As for sanitary health measures, the author quotes verses like Deuteronomy 23:13, which wisely advise to "cover up your excrement" by burying it. More common sense observations that need not even involve real scientific understanding.

Now let's take a look at some other portions of the bible that mix with science about as well as water and oil (for the creationists reading, water and oil do not mix).

IV. No Knowledge Like God's 'Knowledge'

"These are the birds you are to detest and not eat... the eagle, the vulture... the bat." - Leviticus 11:13-19 lumps bats under the category of birds the Israelites were not to eat.

"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you." - Leviticus 11:20 instructs us to avoid four-legged insects, or fowl, depending on the translation. This is an easy command to follow, because no such things exist.

"Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." - According to 1 Chronicles 16:30, the earth does not move or rotate on its axis.

"In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat." - While the earth is fixed and unmoving, Psalm 19:4-6 tells us that the sun does move, once again consistent with the old cosmological model.

"Like a slug melting away as it moves along..." - Psalm 58:8 tells us that slugs melt as they move. They may leave a trail of slime, but they don't literally melt. Not unless you apply some salt.

"When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm." - Another reference to a fixed earth resting on pillars, found in Psalm 75:3.

"...the moon will not give its light." - Isaiah 13:10 claims that the moon itself is a light, not simply reflecting light from the sun, as we now know.

"The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree..." - In Matthew 13:31-32, Jesus incorrectly says mustard seeds are the smallest of seeds. They also do not grow into trees.

"How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies." - How foolish indeed. Contrary to this statement in 1 Corinthians 15:36, dead seeds will not grow, only live ones will.

"Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge..." - If it contradicts the 'knowledge' of a 2,000 year old religious text, don't believe it!

V. The Verdict

As others have pointed out before, it is interesting to ask why - if the bible does contain scientific truths - it has not been used to make predictions. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. Galileo did not propose heliocentrism because he found it in the bible, he proposed it after countless observations by telescope. When it comes to scientific predictions, the bible has inspired no legitimate discoveries, because it is not scientifically reliable. For all of its vague and misunderstood statements that seem to accord with modern science, there are just as many blatantly contradictory statements of bad science.

The bible is not a science book, nor does it pretend to be. It is a collection of teachings about God, morality, and other subjects, with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge. Those who would argue for the reliability of the bible on scientific matters are divorcing it from its historical context, ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their preconceived bias, and distorting the very scriptures they claim to admire so much. Yet there is something to be said for all the inaccuracies. If the purpose of the bible is to bring humanity to recognize the reality of the Christian God, would it not be all the more impressive to find Newton's laws of motion or specific descriptions of chemical compounds in the 'word of god'? But of course, this is not what we find. The bible is a product of its time with ideas on science that were no different and no less faulty than the common thinking of the period.

1. Deem, R. (2007) Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?. Retrieved Oct. 2, 2010.