To solve a problem, the problem must first be clearly defined. The phrase “science vs. religion” fails on several accounts. As a minimum, it doesn’t identify what science or what religion.
Science is founded on the ability to test and observe. For example, if one states that water at sea level boils at 212 F, the statement can be tested any number of times. While this is a simple example, the principle applies even to the most complex scientific statement.
But when one wishes to determine when something first came into existence (origin), who observed it and how can one test it? For origins, one can only observe evidence in the present and interpret such evidence as to its meaning for the past. Plus, one must first establish suppositions by which the evidence is to be interpreted.
The op-ed by George B. Reed Jr. published in the Aug. 5 issue of Rome News-Tribune fails to recognize the nature of science and misrepresents the problem he writes about, and he uses several straw man arguments. He states, “the Bible was never intended to be a scientific or archeological document.” True, it is a history document. He writes, “it (the Bible) was written in the symbolic, pre-scientific language of the day, and in parables, allegories, myths, etc.” It was written primarily as historical narrative, it does not include myths, and being the word of God, wherever it touches on any scientific topic, it is truth. He includes the canard “They all (Old Testament writers) seem to have written from a flat-earth perspective.” This red-herring has been refuted many times by both Jewish and Christian scholars.
Then Mr. Reed offers a solution to the problem of “science vs. religion:” He states: “Science tells us what, when and how; the Bible tells us who and why.” He fails to recognize that the Bible tells us what, when, how, who, and why and that for origins, science cannot tell us what, when, how, who or why — it can only spin scenarios based on naturalism.