# The Book of Genesis vs. modern science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2004, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487 "2004-05-04T16:52:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![marie1234](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7feea3/32.png) [@marie1234](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marie1234)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/1 "2004-05-04T16:52:00Z")
😕 In the Bibel it says that the birds came first, than the reptiles, but after what scientists have found out is that the life started in the sea, then got on land and then some creatures got wings and could fly (since all of the living organisms in the world cant live without water), so what to believe?? I know it might be hopeless to find an answer on this but what do you think about it?? this is defently a place were science and the Bibel is on very different sides… ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/2 "2004-05-04T17:01:23Z")
This is headed right for Great Debates, I’m sure, but I’ll say this: the Bible is spiritual truth. It is not scientific truth as we understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/3 "2004-05-04T17:11:31Z")
Here you will find a more rationale approach wherein you can still be respected for believing in the bible/god/God, but the more literally you take it, the more flack you will get. There are factual errors in the bible that can be traced directly to the various writer’s lack of knowledge at that time. Don’t apologize for going with science over the bible for facts. If you believe in the bible as God’s word, you can still understand that he used man to pen those words, and man is fallible. And yet, I am an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ccd318/32.png) [@John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Kentzel-Griffin)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/4 "2004-05-04T17:26:48Z")
off to Great Debates. **DrMatrix** - GQ Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/5 "2004-05-04T17:41:43Z")
The Bible is wrong; science is right. Please try also at least to spell “Bible” right! If that’s what you really believe in, at least have enough respect for your own beliefs to express them properly. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/6 "2004-05-04T17:50:02Z")
**Moderator’s Note:** Gave thread new title for clarity. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/7 "2004-05-04T18:10:23Z")
In a related vein, this week’s episode of **Penn & Teller: Bullshit!** (available on the Showtime cable channel) is devoted to debunking the Bible. Ought to be a real interesting episode. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/8 "2004-05-04T20:24:52Z")
**marie** , welcome to the SDMB. Please allow me to apologize for some of my friends who were obviously raised in barns and do not know how to treat guests. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/9 "2004-05-04T22:02:51Z")
That’s not the only sequence that Genesis asserts as different from all of the observable data; I had a really lengthy and wearing debate with a fellow on another board, who was trying to force a fit by arguing that when the Bible says ‘plants and trees’, it actually means waxy-coated single-celled algae and when it says birds, it might actually mean some kind of flying insects - not that these arguments help one bit, because, as [this graphic of the sequence differences](http://www.eat-it.freeserve.co.uk/images/timelines2.jpg) that I made shows (biology only - ignoring the cosmological elements, which are also cause for concern), you just can’t alter the order in which things happened (or were reported to have happened) by blurring the edges of the definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/10 "2004-05-04T23:05:44Z")
> [@](#): > > **In the Bibel it says that the birds came first, than the reptiles** Actually, the Bible does not say this. “Reptiles” as such aren’t even mentioned in Genesis. Courtesy of the [Bible Gateway:](http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=genesis&NIV_version=yes&language=english) > [@](#): > > In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. > > Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. > > And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. > > And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day. > > And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. > > Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day. > > And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day. > > And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day. > > And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. > > Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” ---
**Author:** ![Grant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@Grant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grant)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/11 "2004-05-04T23:05:57Z")
If you are looking for an absolute answer you will probably be disappointed because none of us were there at the beginning and so we don’t know for certain. That being said, taking a closer look we have: 1 Modern science which has gone to great lengths to examin **all** of the known evidence and pain stakingly go through possibilty after possibility to come up with the best fit answer to your question. Modern science is constantly trying to prove itself wrong in order to come up with a better answer. 2 The Bible which has umm… itself to back it up. (I know there are historical documents that back up parts of the New Testament but we are talking Genesis here.) In a logical arguement it is not permitted that you use some thing to back itself up so basically you are left to go on faith alone. That leaves it up to you to decide which you believe. The fact that you have asked this question leads me to believe that you are not just blindly following suit of your religion and that is a good thing. Even if you choose to believe the Bible you have lost nothing by questioning it. I would recommend that you read as much as you can on both sides before you decide. There are better people here than me to get reading suggestions from especially the religious side. You may want to try some thing by Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene for the Physics side. I’m guessing you are fairly young so these may be a little intense so better to get more opinions. By the welcome to the Dope and good luck in your search. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/12 "2004-05-04T23:35:01Z")
Didn’t the Bible say snakes originally had legs, and they were taken away as punishment for tempting Adam and Eve? This one turned out to be true (coincidentally), I think, in as much as snakes evolved from legged creatures. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/13 "2004-05-05T00:47:53Z")
Despite the troubles with its ordering of creation, I think the authors of Genesis deserve major kudos for even recognizing that there _was_ an order to the appearance of the plants and beasts. The book was written a loong time before anyone had heard of either science or formal logic. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/14 "2004-05-05T00:53:47Z")
> [@Duck Duck Goose](#): > > Actually, the Bible does not say this. “Reptiles” as such aren’t even mentioned in Genesis. It does, however, strongly imply it, what with the fifth-day creation of birds and swimming things, and the sixth-day creation of all the other critters. Whether it specifcally mentions reptiles or not, Genesis still has the order incorrect with respect to the order in which organisms are thought to have evolved – “creatures that move along the ground” came before birds no matter how you slice it. > [@Revtim](#): > > Didn’t the Bible say snakes originally had legs, and they were taken away as punishment for tempting Adam and Eve? This one turned out to be true (coincidentally), I think, in as much as snakes evolved from legged creatures. It doesn’t necessarily say they had legs initially, but it does say > [@](#): > > Gen 3 - 14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. It doesn’t really say what the serpent did before it was cursed to “crawl on [its] belly”. And, of course, there can probably be some debate as to whether snakes specifically are implied by the use of “serpent”. See [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=233732) for a discussion of the “snakes had feet” thing, though. ---
**Author:** ![Vlad\_Igor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Vlad\_Igor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vlad_Igor)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/15 "2004-05-05T01:22:25Z")
From the Anglican side: There are two stories of creation (Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3 and Gen 2:4 to 2:25) that are a bit different if read on their own. If you read them as stand-alone texts (heretic!) and use lit-crit to analyze them (blasphemer!) you’ll find that the styles are different, and that the second story blends into the story of Cain and Abel. Notice, too, how Cain, the son of the first people in creation, suddenly has a wife in Gen 4:17. This is because the second story of creation is part of a much larger work of prose that is scattered throughout the OT from Genesis to 2Kings. The first story of creation is a separate story that comes from a more formal, priestly tradition and was added to Genesis long after it had been written. The second story of creation sets the stage on which the stories in the later parts of Genesis and beginnings of Exodus play out. Neither was written as an explanation for How We Got Here, but rather as the beginnig of the Jewish faith… ;j Vlad/Igor ---
**Author:** ![Hi\_Neighbor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hi_neighbor/32/494_2.png) [@Hi\_Neighbor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hi_Neighbor)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/16 "2004-05-05T01:34:19Z")
A couple things to consider. First try reading Genesis 1 and write down the order in which things occured. Then do the same thing with Genesis 2. There are inconsistencies in the order of creation. How can both be literally true? Also think about the current analyses and theories in archeology. Before the days of agriculture people lived by hunting and gathering. They harvested wild wheat where it grew, picked apples, hunted game, etc. The evidence indicates that they lived longer, ate better, and were healthier than their descendants who practiced agriculture. They also could provide for their needs by working fewer hours than their descendants. It sounds like the Garden of Eden existed in time if not in place. Eventually population pressures forced people to settle in one place and adopt agriculture. Once the agricultural people outnumbered the hunters and gathers, the agriculturalists drove off, absorbed, or killed off the hunters and gatherers. Makes you think of Cain and Abel. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/17 "2004-05-05T05:23:31Z")
:rolleyes: Conflating the Bible and truth is a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/18 "2004-05-05T13:00:39Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > In a related vein, this week’s episode of **Penn & Teller: Bullshit!** (available on the Showtime cable channel) is devoted to debunking the Bible. Ought to be a real interesting episode. Yeah, it should be interesting…I find that a 1/2 isn’t enough of P&T. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/19 "2004-05-05T13:05:55Z")
> [@marie1234](#): > > 😕 In the Bibel it says that the birds came first, than the reptiles, but after what scientists have found out is that the life started in the sea, then got on land and then some creatures got wings and could fly (since all of the living organisms in the world cant live without water), so what to believe?? I know it might be hopeless to find an answer on this but what do you think about it?? this is defently a place were science and the Bibel is on very different sides… As many have pointed out, the Bible’s order of events is different in chapter one then it is in chapter two. Personally I’d go with science, as it’s got the evidence behind it. That’s not to say that Genesis is completely false, mind you, it does hold some very good metaphorical truths. I just don’t think it’s _literally_ true, because even if we discount the creation, Genesis still has a number of problems with it. The one that immediately pops into my head is about Jacob and reeds, where Jacob (IIRC, I think it’s somewhere between Gen 30-35) influences the genetics of his livestock by placing striped sticks in the river where the livestock mated. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487/20 "2004-05-05T14:23:34Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Didn’t the Bible say snakes originally had legs, and they were taken away as punishment for tempting Adam and Eve? This one turned out to be true (coincidentally), I think, in as much as snakes evolved from legged creatures. No, the Bible says that one particular being called the Nakhash (the ‘Serpent’, literally, the Whisperer) which caused Adam & Eve to distrust God was sentenced by God to crawl on its belly & eat dust for its crime. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-book-of-genesis-vs-modern-science/243487.md?page=2)