Science vs. the Bible

I’m interested in compiling a list of conflicts between the Bible and science, i.e. (book chapter:verse) says “this” therefore “that” scientific assertion must be incorrect.

At first I was going to post this in General Questions because I’m really after a factual list. Debate is likely unavoidable.
To start off:

Genesis 1:1 (and verses following) narrates God’s actions in creating the heavens and earth. Therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect. One cannot reconcile the two by saying “evolution is God’s way of creating and the story is not literal” because Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25 say that things reproduce according to its kind - no speciation allowed.

Psalms 93:1, Psalms 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:5 say the earth is fixed and the sun moves. Therefore the heliocentric model of the solar system is incorrect.
What is the direct biblical support for a young earth? I know it has something to do with the genealogies (sp?) - can one by strictly reading the bible come to the 6000 year conclusion or does one need extra-biblical material?

There are others just outside of my recollection: rabbits chewing their cud (or something like this). Is there biblical support for a flat-earth?

Hmmm…I seem to recall a chapter, I couldn’t say which, but it is Old Testament, that defines the value of pi as 3.

You may wish to consult the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, which has a very extensive compilation.

There is a passage describing a bowl 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across that in my opinion is not defining pi to be 3. If we use the ideas of significant figures that I was taught in grade school We can only get one digit of accuracy from so 3 is decently accurate.

No, I think it was when God cast Adam and Eve out of the garden he said, “When come back, bring pi.”

There doesn’t need to be any conflict between science and the Bible. The conflict is between science and fundamentalists, or Biblical literalists. Finding that a Bronze age civilization was in error about a lot of facts shouldn’t be that surprising. Even a genius like Aristotle believed in Heliocentrism.

Geocentrism, that is.


Give me some… time… and I can come up with the reasoning that some undies use for the dates (approxiamte) for the Creation of Adam and the Deluge.

Yes, it can be narrowed down. The key is not so much genealogies, as the spans of time “recorded” about them and other spans of time related to secific events other than the birth of a child. Just briefly, for now, there were supposed to be so many years back from the fourth year of Solomon’s reign to the Exodus, and back from the Exodus to the Promise to Abraham, which happened at a certain age for Abraham, that is of course, a certain number of years after his birth. From Abraham’s birth, the genealogies in the Bible are continuous back to Noah through his son, Shem. Earlier
genealogies extend from Noah back through to Adam.

Based on what Solomon’s probable date of first reigning, we can definitely establish the probable date of the “Deluge” within a few years; there is little variation among the literalists. Or for that matter, skeptics who work out their own “what if” chronologies.

Not all creationists are Young Earth, and even some of those who are believe either in Day/Age for the days of Creation, or that there is an enormous time-gap (“Gap Theory”) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 That said, the lieralists would tend to be just as bound about Adam’s creation as the Deluge. It’s mostly about whether the Earth and Universe are shown to be young as well that one mght be surprised by certain fundamentalist answers.

True Blue Jack

These verses don’t exactly say what you claim.

Psalm 93:1

Nothing about the sun there.
Psalm 104:5


Ecclesiastes 1:5

Nothing about the earth there.

The first two verses could be narrowly construed to be claiming that the earth as a planet is an unmoving object in the heavens, but given that all of these verses are part of praises of God’s might, a more simple interpretation might be that the verses are trying to say that God is great and his creation is immense.

I don’t have time to look at the rest of your verses, but you should read verses before you cite them to make sure that they say what you claim they say. These three don’t.

I did read them - my error was in not typing “respectively” The first two say the earth is fixed, the last one says the sun moves. I didn’t mean to suggest each verse mentions both the earth and the sun. My apologies. The point remains, though, that these verses bolstered the resistence to heliocentricity, much to Galileo’s chagrin.

In that case the bowl would have been 31 cubits around and 10 across.

Sorry, that probably wasn’t clear. The bible does not mention 3, they mention 30 and 10.

Jackpot! Kinda makes this thread unnecessary, though…

I’m curious if someone can find that 30 x 10 bowl though… Only the most anal would demand the bible report it as 3.00x10[sup]2[/sup] x 9.50 (or 31.4 x 10.0) - esp. given that the bowl was not likely a perfect circle. But I’d still like to add it to the list.

1 Kings 7:23

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Never mind. I see now you were talking about literally finding the artifact. I thought you were asking for chapter and verse.

I think that’s one of the weaker Biblical “errors,” though. There are some much more significant examples. For instance, there was not and could not have been a global flood, and it is not possible that all people and animals on earth could have descended in a few thousand years from the population of Noah’s Ark.

Why do you say that? 10 has one significant figure and 30 has one significant figure therefore when you divide one by the other your result should have 1 significant figure. 3 in this case.

Psalm 98:8:
“Let the rivers clap their hands,
Let the mountains sing together for joy”

Therefore, science’s assertion that rivers do not have hands must be incorrect.

Also, according to the latest theories of modern science, mountains do not have lungs, mouths, or vocal cords, and thus cannot sing.

No, you were right (although, now that you mention it I’d LOVE to see that bowl!) Thanks for c&v.

And yeah, as far as rebutting a literalist it’s pretty lame.

Yeah, just to be clear, the Bible doesn’t say “Pi =3,” but in order for a circle to match the dimensions it gives for the bowl in 1 Kings, pi would have to be three. In other words, it describes a figure which would be geometrically impossible. Of course, it’s pretty easy just to dismiss it as a bit of rounding and poetic gloss. I don’t think it’s that significant.