# Christians: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2013, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322 "2013-07-01T06:22:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/701 "2013-07-19T22:15:53Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If you’ve ever been up close to an elephant seal, you’d know they are a lot different from the sea lions and seals you find in San Francisco. They are very different species. (A sea lion trying to mate with an elephant seal would not be pretty.) Go far enough back, they aren’t seals any more - in fact they’d be living on land, like the precursors to whales. Yeah, he’s pulled this one before. “Horses evolved from horses.” Yeah, the modern horse evolved from a small critter with different teeth, a different shoulder and hip, and, oh, yeah, distinct toes. He’s just playing the “No one has ever seen an acorn grow up into a giant oak tree” game. What amazes me is that he (and his kind) now accept that lions and tigers had a common ancestor “Cats evolved from cats” but still balk at humans and gorillas having a common ancestor. If seals can evolve from seals, and horses from horses, why is it such a challenge to them that anthropoids evolved from anthropoids? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/702 "2013-07-19T22:41:29Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Yeah, he’s pulled this one before. “Horses evolved from horses.” Yeah, the modern horse evolved from a small critter with different teeth, a different shoulder and hip, and, oh, yeah, distinct toes. > > He’s just playing the “No one has ever seen an acorn grow up into a giant oak tree” game. What amazes me is that he (and his kind) now accept that lions and tigers had a common ancestor “Cats evolved from cats” but still balk at humans and gorillas having a common ancestor. If seals can evolve from seals, and horses from horses, why is it such a challenge to them that anthropoids evolved from anthropoids? I don’t even see the vegetables in my garden grow. (Well, the squash comes close to growing fast enough.) I don’t know for sure that God or an angel come down every night and replace smaller ones with bigger ones. Hey, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (Preventative strike. 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/703 "2013-07-21T06:52:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t even see the vegetables in my garden grow. (Well, the squash comes close to growing fast enough.) I don’t know for sure that God or an angel come down every night and replace smaller ones with bigger ones. > > Hey, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (Preventative strike. 🙂 ) Humans are different from apes, no? ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/704 "2013-07-21T06:55:34Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Maybe you should read Matthew 24:34 and stop falling back on subjective interpretation to support your own bias. > > You want more? Easy to find lots more. > > [Somehow Egypt still exists, the Nile isn’t dried up.]([Ezekial - Ezekiel’s Inaugural Vision - In my - Bible Gateway](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekial) 29:8-12&version=NASB) > [Again, the Nile is still fine.](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2019:5-8&version=NASB) > [Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre. Even after being conquered by Alexander the Great, somehow it still exists.](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2026:7-14&version=NASB) > [Nope, Israel is fighting with it’s neighbors.](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2028:25-26&version=NASB) > > There’s a lot more, if you bother to look that is. > **[Eschatology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology)** > > Eschatology (/ˌɛskəˈtɒlədʒi/ ⓘ; from Ancient Greek ἔσχατος (éskhatos) 'last' and -logy) concerns expectations of the end of present age, human history, or the world itself. The end of the world or end times is predicted by several world religions (both Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic), which teach that negative world events will reach a climax. Belief that the end of the world is imminent is known as apocalypticism, and over time has been held both by members of mainstream religions and by do The... ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/705 "2013-07-21T06:57:37Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Commentary > _def_ > > 1. Opinion. Since he asked me my opinion of when the ‘light’ in Genesis 1:3 went away (essentially conceding his entire argument), I simply referred to a notable Biblical scholar. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/706 "2013-07-21T06:58:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Observed in the fossil record. How do you propose observing their ancestors today? > What do you think the limits of evolution are. Even creationists have been forced to accept what they call microevolution, since we see it happening. We’ve seen speciation happening also - I don’t know if creationists accept this. In my experience they seem to work with “kinds” which were on the ark. What mechanism do you propose keeps species which can no longer interbreed from drifting further and further apart with time? This is what I have been asking for, for a few years now. Please cite, thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/707 "2013-07-21T19:53:52Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Humans are different from apes, no? Humans are a type of ape, closely related to them. Any differentiation comes from the fact that we do the differentiating, and we like to think of ourselves as special. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/708 "2013-07-21T19:55:58Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > This is what I have been asking for, for a few years now. Please cite, thank you. I’m not exactly sure what you want a cite for, but [here](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090422-seal-evolution-missing-link.html) is a National Geographic item on the discovery of fossil seals with legs. Is that transitional enough for you? Not even talkorigins. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/709 "2013-07-22T01:45:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Humans are a type of ape, closely related to them. Any differentiation comes from the fact that we do the differentiating, and we like to think of ourselves as special. We did not choose to become infertile with apes. There are genetic boundaries which even our best geneticists cannot cross. If intelligence cannot cause such differentiation, unobserved millions of years is even less of a viable answer. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/710 "2013-07-22T01:49:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m not exactly sure what you want a cite for, but [here](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090422-seal-evolution-missing-link.html) is a National Geographic item on the discovery of fossil seals with legs. Is that transitional enough for you? Not even talkorigins. Thank you for the cite. > **[Puijila](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puijila)** > > Puijila darwini is an extinct species of stem-pinniped (seal) which lived during the Miocene about 21 to 24 million years ago. About a metre (3 feet) long, the animal had only minimal physical adaptations for swimming. Unlike modern pinnipeds, it did not have flippers and its shape was otter-like, albeit more specialized; its skull and teeth are the features that most clearly indicate that it is a seal. > It is considered to be the most primitive pinnipedimorph yet found. The genus name is an In... ‘Puijila darwini is an extinct species of seal which lived during the Miocene epoch about 21 to 24 million years ago. Approximately a metre (three feet) in length, the animal possessed only minimal physical adaptations for swimming. Unlike modern pinnipeds, it did not have flippers and its overall form was otter-like, albeit more specialized; its skull and teeth are the features that most clearly indicate that it is a seal.[1]’ Seems more like an otter than a seal. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/711 "2013-07-22T02:57:11Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Thank you for the cite. > [Puijila - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puijila) > ‘Puijila darwini is an extinct species of seal which lived during the Miocene epoch about 21 to 24 million years ago. Approximately a metre (three feet) in length, the animal possessed only minimal physical adaptations for swimming. Unlike modern pinnipeds, it did not have flippers and its overall form was otter-like, albeit more specialized; its skull and teeth are the features that most clearly indicate that it is a seal.[1]’ > > Seems more like an otter than a seal. You can pretend whatever you like. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/712 "2013-07-22T03:27:44Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Humans are different from apes, no? Nope. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/713 "2013-07-22T04:17:29Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Thank you for the cite. > [Puijila - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puijila) > ‘Puijila darwini is an extinct species of seal which lived during the Miocene epoch about 21 to 24 million years ago. Approximately a metre (three feet) in length, the animal possessed only minimal physical adaptations for swimming. Unlike modern pinnipeds, it did not have flippers and its overall form was otter-like, albeit more specialized; its skull and teeth are the features that most clearly indicate that it is a seal.[1]’ > > Seems more like an otter than a seal. I’d suspect that otter types are good for land animals that spend a lot of time in the water. But did you expect that the remote ancestor of a seal would look like a seal? And this animal evolved into a seal, which was what you were asking for. Perhaps otters will evolve into seal-like animals. There is no way of predicting that. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/714 "2013-07-22T04:34:42Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > We did not choose to become infertile with apes. There are genetic boundaries which even our best geneticists cannot cross. If intelligence cannot cause such differentiation, unobserved millions of years is even less of a viable answer. I don’t even understand this response. Dogs can’t breed with cats - do you think intelligence was the cause? Speciation can occur for a number of reasons, for instance a species getting split by geology, for instance a land bridge goes under water. Then both sides naturally diverge. I read of one in a book that gave modern examples of things discussed by Darwin. There was an insect in the midwest who bred in synch of a type of tree getting blossoms. When apple trees were introduced some of these insects slowly diverged to take advantage of the new food source, and, since apple trees blossom at different times, they slowly evolved to breed at that time - and thus could no longer breed with the original set of insects. There are tons of other great examples, none involving intelligence. Hell, when I take my old guide dog breeder to the field, there are some tiny male dogs who are interested in her. In the wild, there is no way they would succeed, so we’d expect big dogs and small dogs to speciate. It hasn’t happened now because of human breeders, so intelligence is preventing speciation, not the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/715 "2013-07-22T13:14:13Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [Genesis 1 Commentary - Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete)](http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/genesis/1.html) > > 'Verses 3-5 We have here a further account of the first day’s work, in which observe, 1. That the first of all visible beings which God created was light; not that by it he himself might see to work (for the darkness and light are both alike to him), but that by it we might see his works and his glory in them, and might work our works while it is day. The works of Satan and his servants are works of darkness; but he that doeth truth, and doeth good, cometh to the light, and coveteth it, that his deeds may be made manifest, Jn. 3:21 . Light is the great beauty and blessing of the universe. Like the first-born, it does, of all visible beings, most resemble its great Parent in purity and power, brightness and beneficence; it is of great affinity with a spirit, and is next to it; though by it we see other things, and are sure that it is, yet we know not its nature, nor can describe what it is, or by what way the light is parted, Job. 38:19, Job. 38:24 . By the sight of it let us be led to, and assisted in, the believing contemplation of him who is \*\*light, infinite and eternal light \*\*(1 Jn. 1:5 ), and the Father of lights (Jam. 1:17 ), and who dwells in inaccessible light, 1 Tim. 6:16 . In the new creation, the first thing wrought in the soul is light: the blessed Spirit captives the will and affections by enlightening the understanding, so coming into the heart by the door, like the good shepherd whose own the sheep are, while sin and Satan, like thieves and robbers, climb up some other way. Those that by sin were darkness by grace become light in the world. That the light was made by the word of God’s power. He said, Let there be light; he willed and appointed it, and it was done immediately: there was light, such a copy as exactly answered the original idea in the Eternal Mind. O the power of the word of God! He spoke, and **it was done, done really, effectually, and for perpetuity, not in show only, and to serve a present turn, for he commanded, and it stood fast: with him it was dictum, factum—a word, and a world. The world of God (that is, his will and the good pleasure of it) is quick and powerful. Christ is the Word, the essential eternal Word, and by him the light was produced, for in him was light, and he is the true light, the light of the world, Jn. 1:9 Jn. 9:5 .** The divine light which shines in sanctified souls is wrought by the power of God, the power of his word and of the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, opening the understanding, scattering the mists of ignorance and mistake, and giving the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ, as at first, God commanded the light to shine out of darkness, 2 Co. 4:6 . Darkness would have been perpetually upon the face of fallen man if the Son of God had not come, and given us an understanding, 1 Jn. 5:20 . That the light which God willed, when it was produced, he approved of: God saw the light that it was good. It was exactly as he designed it, and it was fit to answer the end for which he designed it. It was useful and profitable; the world, which now is a palace, would have been a dungeon without it. It was amiable and pleasant. Truly the light is sweet (Eccl. 11:7 ); it rejoiceth the heart, Prov. 15:30 . What God commands he will approve and graciously accept; he will be well pleased with the work of his own hands. That is good indeed which is so in the sight of God, for he sees not as man sees. If the light is good, how good is he that is the fountain of light, from whom we receive it, and to whom we owe all praise for it and all the services we do by it! 4. That God divided the light from the darkness, so put them asunder as that they could never be joined together, or reconciled; for what fellowship has light with darkness? 2 Co. 6:14 . And yet he divided time between them, the day for light and the night for darkness, in a constant and regular succession to each other. Though the darkness was now scattered by the light, yet it was not condemned to a perpetual banishment, but takes its turn with the light, and has its place, because it has its use; for, as the light of the morning befriends the business of the day, so the shadows of the evening befriend the repose of the night, and draw the curtains about us, that we may sleep the better. See Job. 7:2 . God has thus divided time between light and darkness, because he would daily remind us that this is a world of mixtures and changes. In heaven there is perfect and perpetual light, and no darkness at all; in hell, utter darkness, and no gleam of light. In that world between these two there is a great gulf fixed; but, in this world, they are counterchanged, and we pass daily from one to another, that we may learn to expect the like vicissitudes in the providence of God, peace and trouble, joy and sorrow, and may set the one over-against the other, accommodating ourselves to both as we do to the light and darkness, bidding both welcome, and making the best of both. 5. That God divided them from each other by distinguishing names: He called the light day, and the darkness he called night. He gave them names, as the Lord of both; for the day is his, the night also is his, Ps. 74:16 . He is the Lord of time, and will be so, till day and night shall come to an end, and the stream of time be swallowed up in the ocean of eternity. Let us acknowledge God in the constant succession of day and night, and consecrate both to his honour, by working for him every day and resting in him every night, and meditating in his law day and night. 6. That this was the first day’s work, and a good day’s work it was. The evening and the morning were the first day. The darkness of the evening was before the light of the morning, that it might serve for a foil to it, to set it off, and make it shine the brighter. This was not only the first day of the world, but the first day of the week. I observe it to the honour of that day, because the new world began on the first day of the week likewise, in the resurrection of Christ, as the light of the world, early in the morning. In him the day-spring from on high has visited the world; and happy are we, for ever happy, if that day-star arise in our hearts. ’ So finally Reef Shark provides a little more detail to his opinion on what happened in Genesis. Let’s take a look: As a whole, this indicates that God creates ‘light’ (in a vague sense it seems) in verse 1:3. No truck with this. Of course, if Reef Shark intends to say that this light could have sustained life on earth, he’s got a problem. In fact, he highlights it for us: > [@](#): > > By the sight of it let us be led to, and assisted in, the believing contemplation of him who is light, **infinite and eternal light** (1 Jn. 1:5 ) In short, if Reef wants to maintain that God created a sustaining light from creation that could have enabled plants to live and thrive on earth, it would still be here. So where is this light? After all, it’s eternal, isn’t it? Also, once God creates the Sun, why didn’t all the plant life die from a doubling of heat and radiation? Also, notice that this commentary says nothing about the Sun or the Moon? I did - I wonder if Reef Shark did. This passage only muddles Genesis further. So now the Sun is superfluous. Also notice that Reef Shark does not provide anything that would suggest that the Moon is not a light, but merely reflect light. Reef Shark, if he is to take the Bible literally, has to believe that the Moon creates its own light. Also, does this mean that Reef Shark must now deny the moon landings (as I brought up early and Reef blatantly ignored). I think it does. > [@hotflungwok](#): > > Commentary > _def_ > > 1. Opinion. It doesn’t matter - it doesn’t help him and it only puts him further in his hole. His position is absurd and he’s scrambling to try to make it seem less so. Instead, he just digs deeper. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Since he asked me my opinion of when the ‘light’ in Genesis 1:3 went away (essentially conceding his entire argument), I simply referred to a notable Biblical scholar. I’ve been asking about a different passage entirely, actually. You keep bringing up 1:3 as though it were relevant, but you haven’t shown it is - neither did that Bible Scholar. I’m not convinced that you actually understood what he wrote, to be frank. So, please address the problem directly. Right now you either have plants living and thriving without the Sun AND the Moon (absurdly) creating its own light OR you have a mysterious light (and you’ll have to show us where this is) AND then the Sun and Moon being created (Moon still generating it’s own light) thus effectively doubling the amount of heat on our planet. Either way you cut it, your position fails as does your attempt to get out of it. All of this is on the first page of the Bible too. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/716 "2013-07-22T13:16:09Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > There are genetic boundaries which even our best geneticists cannot cross. Making up stuff? What are these boundaries - please be specific or retract this claim. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/717 "2013-07-22T14:57:56Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > [Eschatology - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology) How is this supposed to be an answer? I gave you some failed prophecies, how about you actually respond to them rather than just citing some web site that doesn’t actually seem to have anything to do with what I posted? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/718 "2013-07-22T15:01:24Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Since he asked me my opinion of when the ‘light’ in Genesis 1:3 went away (essentially conceding his entire argument), I simply referred to a notable Biblical scholar. But that’s the point. It’s just a guess. It’s not supported by evidence, it’s an explanation after the fact that seems to fit. I can dismiss them with the same amount of evidence given for them, none. It’s a non-answer, and comes down to goddidit. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/719 "2013-07-22T15:22:46Z")
I was reading the [commentary further](http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/genesis/1.html), to actually see if the author had any commentary on Genesis 1:16 (you know, the verse we are actually discussing) and this is what is written: > [@](#): > > Verses 14-19 This is the history of the fourth day’s work, the creating of the sun, moon, and stars, which are here accounted for, not as they are in themselves and in their own nature, to satisfy the curious, but as they are in relation to this earth, to which they **serve as lights** ; and this is enough to furnish us with matter for praise and thanksgiving. - > [@](#): > > The command given concerning them: **Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven**. God had said, Let there be light (v. 3), and there was light; but this was, as it were, a chaos of light, scattered and confused: **now it was collected and modelled, and made into several luminaries, and so rendered both more glorious and more serviceable.** So God molds the scattered and confused light into the Sun, the stars, and the Moon, essentially. - > [@](#): > > Those lights were to be in the firmament of heaven, that vast expanse which encloses the earth, and is conspicuous to all; for no man, when he has lighted a candle, puts it under a bushel, but on a candlestick (Lu. 8:16 ), and a stately golden candlestick the firmament of heaven is, from which these candles give light to all that are in the house. The firmament itself is spoken of as having a brightness of its own (Dan. 12:3 ), \*\*but this was not sufficient to give light to the earth; and perhaps for this reason it is not expressly said of the second day’s work, in which the firmament was made, that it was good, because, till it was adorned with these lights on the fourth day, it had not become serviceable to man. \*\*2, . The use they were intended to be of to this earth. Two things of note: 1. The light is similar to that of a candle; ie, a candle produces it’s own light. This means that the author believes that the light is generated from the Sun, the Stars, **and the Moon**. 2. The author of this commentary CLEARLY **does not agree with Reef Shark** who is taking the light from 3:1 as being sufficient for the earth (plants growing and what have you). In short, Reef Shark appears to be dishonestly quote mining the scholar to try to make it look like the scholar would agree with him, when in fact he does not. I will point out that later the scholar attempts to get himself out of the moon reflection problem by saying this: > [@](#): > > Let us learn from Ps. 19:1-6 how to give unto God the glory due unto his name, as the Maker of the sun. (2.) The moon is a less light, and yet is here reckoned one of the greater lights, because though, in regard to its magnitude and **borrowed** light, it is inferior to many of the stars The author clearly realizes that the Moon doesn’t produce it’s own light (It’s not clear whether Reef Shark agrees here or not), but the text doesn’t indicate this ‘borrowing’ at all. So if you take the Bible literally it looks as though you have no choice except to believe the Moon generates its own light. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/720 "2013-07-23T19:13:44Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I was reading the [commentary further](http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/genesis/1.html), to actually see if the author had any commentary on Genesis 1:16 (you know, the verse we are actually discussing) and this is what is written: > > - > > So God molds the scattered and confused light into the Sun, the stars, and the Moon, essentially. > > - > > Two things of note: > > 1. The light is similar to that of a candle; ie, a candle produces it’s own light. This means that the author believes that the light is generated from the Sun, the Stars, **and the Moon**. > 2. The author of this commentary CLEARLY **does not agree with Reef Shark** who is taking the light from 3:1 as being sufficient for the earth (plants growing and what have you). > > In short, Reef Shark appears to be dishonestly quote mining the scholar to try to make it look like the scholar would agree with him, when in fact he does not. > > I will point out that later the scholar attempts to get himself out of the moon reflection problem by saying this: > > The author clearly realizes that the Moon doesn’t produce it’s own light (It’s not clear whether Reef Shark agrees here or not), but the text doesn’t indicate this ‘borrowing’ at all. So if you take the Bible literally it looks as though you have no choice except to believe the Moon generates its own light. Once again, you are comparing a reference to the sun with the light in Gen 1:3. Henry says ‘for no man, when he has lighted a candle, puts it under a bushel, but on a candlestick (Lu. 8:16 ), and a stately golden candlestick the firmament of heaven is, from which these candles give light to all that are in the house.’ in reference to verses 14-19. Let us be honest here, thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=37)