Additional Questions:

Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

Genesis begins with a flawed view of cosmology picked up from the Sumerians. There was no Flood and no Garden of Eden. Man came from evolution, not from dust. The Bible has no recipe for soap or basic medical advice. Christians will say that the Bible has no intention of being a science textbook. It simply worked through the flawed worldview of the times. The Bible had no goal to improve the condition of our lives; it taught God’s rules, not health rules.

science and the bible

Answer: That the Bible has flawed science and holds back the advancement of science is a myth
created by Andrew D. White and John William Draper in the 19th century.
See Appendix A in "Did God Really Say".

This topic (science) is covered extensively in "Did God Really Say?" in particular chapters 46 through 59.

When someone throws this type of question at you, the way to respond is to ask for specific proofs of what is being asserted. What is the proof that Genesis is based on Sumerian cosmology? What is the explanation for massive, continent spanning, deep layers of sediment? What is the proof that evolution is true? Unless you are talking specifics, you can't have a discussion. For example, if all one person says, "Man came from evolution." And another responds by saying "Man did not come from evolution." The discussion goes nowhere. All you get is one person saying, "Yes he did!" and the other claiming "No, he didn't!"

Note: You cannot prove a negative. That's why I did not ask for proof Noah's flood did not happen. However, what the skeptic must do is provide reasonable explanations for all of the physical evidence resulting from the flood. A standard "scientific" approach is to make a hypothesis, such as: "The geographic features we see today resulted from slow processes over long periods of time." Then make predictions based on that hypothesis. If the predictions prove to be true, the hypothesis gains credibility. For example, it was believed that it takes tens of millions of years for coal to form, and much of the coal we mine today comes from organic material deposited 300 million years ago. However, numerous coal samples have been carbon dated and every one has C14, meaning they all are less than 100,000 years old. This destroys evolutionists' predictions that there'd be no C14. On the other hand, this is what we'd expect to find if the organic material was deposited by a recent world-wide flood.

What the skeptic asking this question is saying is that his assertions don't need any proof. We are to assume they are true. However, all but one of the assertions in this question are false. The only one that is true is that the Bible is not a science textbook.

It is correct that the Bible was not written as a science textbook. What that means is simply what it says. For example, I am holding in my hands right now a copy of the teacher's edition of "The American Nation," This is a history textbook. To say this book is not a science textbook is a true statement. Does that mean this textbook does not include scientific information? Of course not. In the same way the Bible is not a science text book, BUT it does include accurate information about our world and universe that has only been "discovered" scientifically centuries after the Bible was written. Science has never proven that ANYTHING the Bible asserts as true is false... including the creation of everything by God in six days. On the other hand, belief in evolution is a faith belief not supported by unbiased scientific investigation.

Okay, I've made a counter assertion to what the questioner said. Where is my proof? Here is what I'll do. This offer is open to anyone reading this article. Send me one piece of evidence that evolution over millions of years is true. Just one. To reduce confusion we'll deal with one claim at a time. In return, I'll send you one piece of evidence God created everything thousands of years ago. I'll then respond to your evidence and you can respond to my evidence, and I'll make the entire discussion available on this web site. Please make your assertion and response readable... meaning keep it at about about an 8th grade reading level. Here is a link to the form to use for submitting your evidence.

To wrap up, and with nothing specific to answer, I'll just respond to the last claim in this question.

The Bible teaches God’s rules, not health rules.

Yes, the Bible teaches God's rules. Those rules include health laws. Here is a quote from chapter 47 of "Did God Really Say?":

The health laws in the Bible teach the principles people need to follow in order to minimize both the spread of and the effects of disease. They require cleanliness and hygiene, as well as the most effective tool (at the time) against infectious disease... quarantine. During the black plague many Jews followed the Biblical health laws and their death rate was just half, and in some areas possibly as low as 5% of that of the general population. Because they were not getting sick, people assumed the Jews caused the plague. The result was the massacre and persecution of Jews (see chapter 44).

During the black plague non-Jews were doing what the humanists today say we should do, follow human wisdom and ignore the Bible... and they died.

Recommended Resources

Thousands... Not Billions (book)
Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth

Scientific Evidence For A Recent Creation (video)

Does The Bible Contain Scientific Errors (video)


If you have a "But what about...?" question please sent it to me. Use the contact form to send me your comments, questions, accusations and corrections.

To order your copy on Amazon, click here.