The Legend of the Firmament

Email Exchange: Does the Bible Really Contain Science? 11/14/09

The following is an email Exchange between Max B. Frederick and Clyde H. Spencer November, 2009. Clyde’s comments inserted into the draft version of an article herein following the email part are very insightful and worth reading. Just hold the cursor over the yellow highlighted items to read the comments.

-----Original Message----- From: Clyde Spencer Sent: Nov 25, 2009 7:50 PM To: Max Frederick Subject: RE: Science

Max, It is not an issue of fear or courage. I feel that it is important for one to stand up for their beliefs as an act of honesty. When I used to teach, one of the professors used to leave anonymous notes in the mail boxes. I never figured out who it was, but had no respect for him because he didn't have the courage to sign his name to his complaints. I have always been fond of the saying that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I have a certain sense of nobles oblige because I know that I'm bright and articulate. Therefore, I feel that I have an obligation to use those talents, hopefully for the good. Therefore, you have my permission to use my writings, in my name. I'm glad you can accept my constructive criticism in the manner it is intended and not be offended by my disagreeing with you. Have a good Thanksgiving, Clyde -----Original Message----- From: Max Frederick Sent: Nov 25, 2009 7:32 PM To: Clyde Spencer Subject: RE: Science

Clyde,

I started to say that You do not know how much I appreciate your interchange. But it is obvious you do or you would not put so much effort into it. I am thinking one of the things I am most thankful for this Thanksgiving season is someone like you, fearless (kind of) to challenge me honestly, yet without it being in anger. It is rare to find someone to put the effort into it as you have, with no expectation of reward other than satisfaction of honest interchange. Your input has given me great insight on how to revise my thoughts to get an honest point across where I might be pushing the wrong point, or at least using vocabulary that is confusing my point. Hopefully, now I will be able to re-write with clarity. Would you have any objection to my posting this complete interchange on the internet and referring to it in an article? Your Friend, Max -----Original Message----- From: Clyde Spencer Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 2:44 PM To: Max Frederick Subject: Re: Science

Max, It is generally acknowledged that it is much more difficult to write something that is compact and succinct. It takes focus and much re-writing to accomplish that goal. I did read everything in the main body of text, i.e. all 12 pages. I must have touched a tender spot for you to have invested so much time and research in a rebuttal. I'm uncomfortable with this interchange because I know your faith is important to you, and I do not share it. I know that I'm not going to change you, and I wouldn't want to if I could. However, I feel that I have to respond honestly. I guess I should feel flattered that you were taken with my expression, about an interwoven tapestry, sufficiently to use it several times. I have interspersed over 30 comments in the body of your monologue, using the MS Word comment insertion feature. They show up as words being highlighted in yellow where the insertions are. Your friend, Clyde ----- Original Message -----

From: Max Frederick To: Clyde Spencer Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:52 PM Subject: RE: Science

Clyde, I have been working on it. I have attached a Microsoft Word file of the rough draft of my latest effort. Would you like to comment on this rough draft of this article before I publish it in the next issue of the E-Zine? It mentions your name several times. It is about 12 pages long and I would prefer for it to be half that size. What should I cut out? Actually, it is much longer if you include the fifteen page commentary on Psalm 104 linked to on page 11 and the six page, Story Behind the Legend of the Firmament linked to in the footnote on page 5. The difficulty I have most is making it small enough so people will read it without quitting part way through. Thanks, Max -----Original Message----- From: Clyde Spencer Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 7:38 AM

To: Max Frederick Subject: Science Max, You say, “Some would like to define science to include some scientific method. But science existed long before the scientific method or mathematics became the dominate feature. To the layman, science is simply humans seeking to find the truth about reality for themselves, and with rigorous discipline."

The layman's "science" as you call it is more properly called metaphysics. I think that most scientists would say that Science, as we know it, started with Sir Francis Bacon. Prior to that, what existed was a trial-and-error approach to acquiring knowledge about the natural world, and the supporting facts that allowed interpretation of phenomena, and improvement of technological processes. Technology has existed since fire was controlled and the first stick was hardened and sharpened in a fire. Thus, technology is older than science because those primitives knew that they could cook food and make spears with fire, but they didn't know why. What differentiates Science from folk lore, anecdotes, and a belief that something is true that isn't (take Aristotle's belief in spontaneous generation of life from decaying meat, for example) IS The Scientific Method, which entails controlled experiments and validation of the results by peer review, subject to further examination if the Null Hypothesis test fails. Lastly, the validated scientific theory is codified in a short-hand called mathematics that allows quantitative predictions for different values of variables than were used in the testing. This is all vastly different from the pre-scientific trial-and-error approach that usually resulted in recipes that were not to be deviated from if one wanted to get good results in the production of brass, paint pigment, or boat hull design, to name just a few applications of science. I realize that certain sciences, such as paleontology, are handicapped by the inability to conduct tests on long-dead animals. However, one might counter by saying that paleontology, which literally means "study of ancient life" is not a complete, robust science in the same sense as physics. It is probably the recognition of that handicap that is responsible for the current trend of developing computer simulations to make up for the inability to perform experiments on actual animals. In summary, without The Scientific Method and mathematics, one only has a collection of observations, and 'facts' of dubious veracity, that are but the first step in The Scientific Method; thus, it is an aborted science that can do much mischief in the name of Science. If Darwin had only cataloged the many rocks, plants, and animals collected while traveling around the world, he would most probably be only an obscure archivist, and not a renowned scientist. It was the inductive reasoning based on his observations that led to a grand theory that is still being tested today, which elevates him to being an insightful scientist. Facts alone do not constitute science, even though they are an essential element. It is the weaving of those facts into a tapestry that can withstand heavy use that is true science. Clyde

Does the Bible Really Contain Science? By Max B. Frederick, AnOldScientist “Facts alone do not constitute science, even though they are an essential element. It is the weaving of those facts into a tapestry that can withstand heavy use that is true science.” Clyde Spencer

Once again it becomes necessary to address the same question. Once again, an E-Zine reader has challenged the whole notion that scientific information can be found within the pages of the bible. If you are looking for science in the bible, whether or not you find it depends on how you define science. The bible contains many facts recorded a long time ago that appear to be in the realm of scientific information. But is it really science in the bible? You can define science to be knowledge of true facts concerning the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy. Those facts are to be specified or implied, and the knowledge, or cognizance, of those facts is to be demonstrated by some practical organization of those facts. Or, you can define science to be all of the above, and in addition require that specified or implied information to be derived or discovered exclusively by the use of the Scientific Method of Modern Science, and, in addition, you may even require that organization to be stated in the language of modern mathematics. Science, or more specifically, scientific information, by the former definition is obviously to be found in the bible. Science, by the latter definition will not be found for two reasons. One, the source of that factual information in the bible is credited to God, not the Scientific Method and two, the Scientific Method was not developed until the emergence of Modern Science about four hundred years ago, thousands of years after most of the bible was originally written. Many claims of finding science in the bible have been made. Some are just downright ridiculous. Some of those ridiculous claims were even used to convict great scientists such as Galileo of crimes against the church. Even some God loving, honest, but overzealous people misinterpret scripture, and misrepresent it to be knowledge of modern science, in their desire to make God look good. But those claims of science are not real. It is stuff like that that gives science and the bible a bad reputation. But does that negate the possibility that there really is science in the bible? It depends on how you define science. Is science the organized factual information? Or is it the processes by which the information was obtained? Whether or not science exists in the bible depends on whether or not you require the definition of science to include the modern scientific method.

In my writing, I try to differentiate between the two different concepts of science and modern science, by calling them science, vs. modern science. Scientific information would then be referring to information in the realm of science by the time honored definition of science. Modern science information would be derived by the processes of modern science sometime in the past approximately four hundred years. In the Science and the Bible E-Zine such terms as, science, modern science, and antique science, are used quite frequently. This past month, and in former times, readers have challenged my use of the term, science. As one reader, Clyde1, puts it: “The layman's "science" as you call it is more properly called metaphysics. I think that most scientists would say that Science, as we know it, started with Sir Francis Bacon. Prior to that, what existed was a trial-and-error approach to acquiring knowledge about the natural world, and the supporting facts that allowed interpretation of phenomena, and improvement of technological processes. Technology has existed since fire was controlled and the first stick was hardened and sharpened in a fire. Thus, technology is older than science because those primitives knew that they could cook food and make spears with fire, but they didn't know why. What differentiates Science from folk lore, anecdotes, and a belief that something is true that isn't (take Aristotle's belief in spontaneous generation of life from decaying meat, for example) IS The Scientific Method, which entails controlled experiments and validation of the results by peer review, subject to further examination if the Null Hypothesis test fails. Lastly, the validated scientific theory is codified in a short-hand called mathematics that allows quantitative predictions for different values of variables than were used in the testing. This is all vastly different from the pre-scientific trial- and-error approach that usually resulted in recipes that were not to be deviated from if one wanted to get good results in the production of brass, paint pigment, or boat hull design, to name just a few applications of science. I realize that certain sciences, such as paleontology, are handicapped by the inability to conduct tests on long-dead animals. However, one might counter by saying that paleontology, which literally means "study of ancient life" is not a complete, robust science in the same sense as physics. It is probably the recognition of that handicap that is responsible for the current trend of developing computer simulations to make up for the inability to perform experiments on actual animals. In summary, without The Scientific Method and mathematics, one only has a collection of observations, and 'facts' of dubious veracity, that are but the first step in The Scientific Method; thus, it is an aborted science that can do much mischief in the name of Science. If Darwin had only cataloged the many rocks, plants, and animals collected while traveling around the world, he would most probably be only an obscure archivist, and not a renowned scientist. It was the inductive reasoning based on his observations that led to a grand theory that is still being tested today, which elevates him to being an insightful scientist. Facts alone do not constitute science, even though they are an essential element. It is the weaving of those facts into a tapestry that can withstand heavy use that is true science.” This raises the problem that to different people the word science means different things. As a minimum, the realm of science implies the physical world of cold hard facts as opposed to supernatural things, or even belief, or opinion concerning, but going beyond cold hard facts. Science: The Changing Definition. Rapid recent evolution2 in the definition of science is recorded in the dictionaries from various years of publication.

1 Spencer, Clyde, email Sent: Mon 11/2/2009 7:38 AM: (I have known Clyde for many years and have great respect for his intellectual honesty.) 2 But maybe I should not use the word evolution. What appears to be evolutionary change in the definition of science is the product of the infusion of intelligence, and the idea of intelligence having anything to do with the processes of evolutionary change is not politically correct at this time. www.ScienceAndTheBible.net © Copyright, 2009 Max B. Frederick. All rights reserved. 5 Email Exchange: Does the Bible Really Contain Science? 11/14/09

In 1971, the Oxford English Dictionary3, published the definition of “science” to be: 1. The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute.. 2. Knowledge acquired by study; acquaintance with or mastery of any department of learning. 3. A particular branch of knowledge or study; a recognized department of learning. In this sense it simply implies knowledge of factual reality as opposed to belief or opinion. In 1971, there is no indication of a requirement that the information be derived by the Scientific Method. Also, note there is no requirement for science to address the question of why? As one of my greatly respected geology professors, Dr. Marshall Maddock once explained to me personally, why is not in the realm of science, only what. In the Second Edition of that same dictionary4 the definition remains unchanged from 1989 to 2004. It is only quite recently that there has been any method of acquiring knowledge attached to the definition of the word, science. The Methods of Modern Science began to emerge, as Clyde points out, during the times of Sir Francis Bacon and Galileo, only about four hundred years ago. In 2008, in the Revised Third Edition of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary5, the word science is transitioning from the original, more general meaning of organized factual knowledge of the physical world, to include the method of obtaining such knowledge. The older concept of science has slipped to second position. 1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject. Science: The Time Honored Concept. That general concept of science as defined up until the end of the last century (1900’s,) existed long before the scientific method became formalized, or was even imagined. It has been around for thousands of years. It existed long before the English language containing the word science, or even Latin language, from whence the word science came. Before the English language even existed, A more ancient word carried the same meaning. That concept can be traced back at least as far as the Ancient Greek culture. The word they used for that concept was physics.6

3 "Science." Def. 1. The Oxford English Dictionary. compact edition. 1971. reprinted, 1979, The Oxford English Dictionary is considered to be the definitive record of the English language. http://www.oed.com/about/. 4 "Science." The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989,. reprinted, 2004 5 “Science,” Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Third edition revised Oxford Dictionaries, 1,264 pages 978-0-19-953296-4, 19 June 2008, http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/science?view=get 6 The Ancient Greek word for physics, φύσις, is used in the bible and is included in Strong’s Lexicon as word number 5449. According to Strong, the first century primary biblical meaning is: www.ScienceAndTheBible.net © Copyright, 2009 Max B. Frederick. All rights reserved. 6 Email Exchange: Does the Bible Really Contain Science? 11/14/09

The word “physics,” in its original Greek form, was, for thousands of years, the term used for the concept now commonly attached to the English word, “science.” Physics is the science of the knowledge of factual (physical) existence. Physics, for millienia, has been a study of the factual, which according to definition one is what we now call science. Physics is one of the oldest academic disciplines.7 Our modern day word, physics, is simply an English pronounciation of the ancient Greek word “physis,” φύσις, meaning nature, (physical) carrying the connotation of factual (observable) rather than imaginary (unobservable.) Although the science of physics existed for millennia, it is only during the last four centuries8 or so that it emerged as a sub-part of the overall field of science. Previous to that it was what is now science according to definition one. The same original Oxford English Dictionary, defines “physics” to be originally similar, but older: 1. Natural science in general; in the older writers esp. the Aristotelian system of natural science; hence, natural philosophy in the wider sense… (Over time the term has tended continually to be narrowed.) 2. In current usage, restricted to The science, or group of sciences, treating of the properties of matter and energy, or of the action of the different forms of energy on matter in general (excluding Chemistry, which deals specifically with the different forms of matter, and Biology, which deals with vital energy). 1900 W. Watson Textbk, Physics: “We are led to define Physics in its most general aspect as a discussion of the properties of matter and energy…” 3. The science of, or a treatise on, medicine. Some scholars9 contend that theoretical science was originally born with the early Greek science of the era from Thales to Plato, about 600 BC.

1) nature a) the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature 1) as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse 2) as opposed what has been produced by the art of man… This is somewhat different than the definition found among the scientific community, commonly translated, nature, probably, because of the religious connotations assumed by the theological community. 7 Carnegie Mellon, Mellon College of Science, Dept of Physics, “Physics” http://www.cmu.edu/physics/ Physics is the study of nature at a fundamental level, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave. Physics is one of the oldest academic disciplines and spans a vast assortment of phenomena, ranging from the smallest sub-atomic particles to galaxies and the universe itself. 8 Science Daily, “Physics” http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/p/physics.htm “As an experimental science, its goal is to understand the natural world. In one form or another, physics is one of the oldest academic disciplines; through its modern subfield of astronomy, it may be the oldest of all. Sometimes synonymous with philosophy, chemistry and even certain branches of mathematics and biology during the last two millennia, physics emerged as a modern science in the 17th century and these disciplines are now generally distinct, although the boundaries remain difficult to define. Advances in physics often translate to the technological sector, and sometimes influence the other sciences, as well as mathematics and philosophy.” 9 Angoff, Charles, Humanities in the Age of Science, p. 193 http://books.google.com/books? id=PcqI5OxHEq4C&pg=PA193&sig=TCJK4jUZsEcjjGweN5y_Gh3U9g0&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false www.ScienceAndTheBible.net © Copyright, 2009 Max B. Frederick. All rights reserved. 7 Email Exchange: Does the Bible Really Contain Science? 11/14/09

Others10 say science was born in 300 BC. It was around 300 BC that the legendary Library of Science was originally established in Alexandria. There the world’s knowledge was collected and organized for the next few hundred years. Yet others contend that science actually existed and had its roots as early as around 3400 BC in the ancient Egyptian Civilization. As one author11 says, “it is universally agreed, however, that in technical arts Egyptian workers pointed the way to the rest of the world, and it is to them that all must turn for the first discovery of those facts that made science possible.” More than a thousand years before that, the concept of science is demonstrated in the Ancient Hebrew language portion of the ancient scriptures of the bible. It is not clear that the ancient Hebrews had a specific word for science according to the time honored definition, but that concept is demonstrated by example. The bottom line is, science, according to the 1971definition has existed as long ago as humans were able to write and to weave facts into a tapestry that can withstand heavy use, particularly, withstand the test of time. The Encyclopedia Britannica proclaims that science is older than writing itself. The 1911 version of that encyclopedia12 says: “SCIENCE (Lat. Scientia, from scire, to learn, know), a word which, in its broadest sense is synonymous with learning and knowledge…But in general usage a more restricted meaning has been adopted, which differentiates “science” from other branches of accurate knowledge. For our purpose, science may be defined as ordered knowledge of naturel phenomena and of the relations between them; thus it is a short term for “natural science,” and as such is used here technically in conformity with a general modern convention.” (Remember, here modern means the year 1911.) The 1911 version of the encyclopedia then proceeded to organize the progression of thought from the earliest Greek philosophers as a progression towards reality when in fact it can be a degradation from reality that was previously known13. The 2002 version of that same encyclopedia, some ninety years later, defines science similarly, and then adds the statement, “Science, as it has been defined, made its appearance before writing. It is necessary, therefore, to infer from archaeological remains what was the content of that science. From cave paintings and from apparently regular scratches on bone and reindeer horn, it is known that prehistoric humans were close observers of nature who carefully tracked the seasons and times of the year. About 2500 BC there was a sudden burst of activity that seems to have had clear scientific importance.” It goes on to cite examples of advanced science such as Stonehenge on the Salisbury Plain in England that demonstrates understanding of math at least through what we call the Pythagorean theorem. Could it be that there was a past era when something similar to what we call modern science did exist, even if it may have been in different form? What about the math and science required to build the ancient pyramids that remains unexplained from the evolutionary view of the advancement of science from the primitive to the

10 Russo, Lucio, The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had to Be Reborn, http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Revolution-Science-Born-Reborn/dp/3540203966#reader_3540203966 11 Ead, Prof. Hamad A., Ancient Egyptian Science, http://www.touregypt.net/science.htm 12 “Science” The Encyclodaedia Britannica: A dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information, Eleventh Edition, 1911, Volume XXIV, p. 396. 13 See, The Story Behind the Legend of the Firmament, http://www.scienceandthebible.info/reports/art1216firmamentlegend.pdf www.ScienceAndTheBible.net © Copyright, 2009 Max B. Frederick. All rights reserved. 8 Email Exchange: Does the Bible Really Contain Science? 11/14/09 complex? Is it a coincidence that the origin of the most science intensive book of the bible is the oldest book of the bible? The book of Job, is not only by far the oldest, but is in fact, the most science intensive book of the bible.

Modern Science: The Limited Concept The term Modern Science, may be used to differentiate serious science by the standard of today’s scientific community, from the more general understanding of the concept of science. As Clyde rightly points out: “What differentiates Modern Science from the layman’s concept of science, “…IS The Scientific Method, which entails controlled experiments and validation of the results by peer review, subject to further examination if the Null Hypothesis test fails. Lastly, the validated scientific theory is codified in a short-hand called mathematics that allows quantitative predictions for different values of variables than were used in the testing.” As Clyde also points out, this Modern Science is only about four hundred years old. A search of the literature14 reveals that science by the time honored definition, existed thousands of years before modern science came into existence. Most scientists of today realize that Modern Science, as we modern scientists know it, started with Sir Francis Bacon and his contemporaries. Prior to that, the method of acquiring and organizing knowledge was not a part of the concept of science as much as the knowledge and organization of that knowledge itself. With the rise of Modern Science, and the great separation of science and religion, what differentiated science as opposed to religion was the subject matter. The natural world became the concern of science. Religion was relegated to concern of the supernatural. Until the great separation of science and religion, science and theology were generally considered to be compatible. A theologian was frequently considered to be an authority on the natural as well as the supernatural. It is only quite recently that there has been any method of acquiring knowledge attached to the definition of the word, science. The Methods of Modern Science began to emerge, as Clyde points out, during the times of Sir Francis Bacon and Galileo, only about four hundred years ago. For hundreds of years, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word science was defined according to the age old concept. But that is changing.

14 http://www.google.com/search?q=Greek+science&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE- SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBR&sa=X&tbo=p&tbs=tl:1&num=100&ei=rGIBS4j9LJSMMr7ytYcI&oi=timeline_na vigation_bar&ct=timeline-navbar&cd=3&ved=0CBcQywEoBA www.ScienceAndTheBible.net © Copyright, 2009 Max B. Frederick. All rights reserved. 9 Email Exchange: Does the Bible Really Contain Science? 11/14/09

In 2008, in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary15, the word science is transitioning from the original, more general meaning of organized factual knowledge of the physical world, to include the method of obtaining such knowledge. Apparently this newer meaning is the one preferred by many modern scientists, such as Clyde. True Science: An all Encompassing Concept/Definition: Simply stated, the original, concept of science that has endured for thousands of years is not limited to the modern evolution of the meaning to include rigid adherence to specific processes or rules such as the scientific method or mathematics. I like Clyde’s definition of true science in his final statement, “Facts alone do not constitute science, even though they are an essential element. It is the weaving of those facts into a tapestry that can withstand heavy use that is true science.” In addition, I would add to Clyde’s definition to include the test of time along with heavy use. Even without the scientific method of modern science, for thousands of years, facts were known and organized in such a way that they withstood the test of time and heavy use. The problem we face is the fact that much falsity was organized and recorded in written form, but failed the tests of time and hard use. That was not true science. Just because much was recorded in written form and called science when it was not, does not nullify true science from the ancient past. What is not science? Metaphysics: There is such a thing as metaphysics. Metaphysics is not true science. Science, as I use it, when I write about science in the bible, is not metaphysics. Metaphysics is not true science as defined by Clyde. Rather, metaphysics is science plus interpretation by logic or intuition, or any other process other than the scientific method. That is, metaphysics is facts woven into a tapestry without checks and balances to insure the result is truth. As such it cannot withstand the tests of time and heavy use. The derivation16 of the word metaphysics itself, reveals the shortcoming when compared to true science. Origin of the English word, metaphysics, about 1560-70, came through the Latin metaphysica, from the Greek, metàphysiká, metà, meaning, with, after, or behind, and, physiká, referring to the facts of the physical world. The ancient Greek concept of physics as the knowledge of factual reality becomes metaphysics when the prefix meta- meaning with,

15 “Science,” Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Third edition revised Oxford Dictionaries, 1,264 pages 978-0-19-953296-4, 19 June 2008, http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/science? view=get Science, noun 1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject. 16 “Metaphysics” The Oxford English Dictionary. compact edition. 1971. www.ScienceAndTheBible.net © Copyright, 2009 Max B. Frederick. All rights reserved. 10 Email Exchange: Does the Bible Really Contain Science? 11/14/09 after, or behind. (meta does not imply trans, or beyond as is so often mistakenly assumed when considering metaphysics to be concerning the transcendental.) Metaphysics is simply adding to the known facts some form of logical extension. That logic extension may or may not be true. The addition is not subject to the rigors of the scientific method. Metaphysics is the branch of speculation that comes after the facts, and going beyond the facts to arrive at a conclusion, typically as to ultimate cause, and typically speculated or imagined to be transcendent to the physical. Simply put, metaphysics is the untested interpretation of the facts of reality based on logic or speculation. Metaphysics actually includes (or at least begins with) some knowledge of factual reality. It is the addition of interpretation in the light of logic, intuition, or opinion that converts facts into metaphysics. Typically an observation is described, and an explanation is invented that sounds plausible, but not tested. Even modern scientists are not immune to metaphysics. This is illustrated in the tendency of modern science authors to arrive at a truth by the scientific method, then glibly attribute that truth to evolutionary forces, having not testing that extended hypothesis. In metaphysics, facts come before the speculation. Such speculation leads to error of interpretation, thus, the unreliability of metaphysics to represent reality. Even what is assumed to be modern science can in fact become metaphysics when a scientist interprets beyond the facts. Examples include the direction popular modern science is going as it slides from its pinnacle of credibility when modern science was dominated by the scientific method of discovery of facts, to dry labbing using mathematic models which imperfectly describe reality, to think tanking, to science by consensus.

Antique Science: Commonly confused by bible scholars, with true science. Ancient science of the height of the Greek era, even going back to the beginning of the great Greek philosophers can be considered to be a mixture of commingled true science and metaphysics. That which has withstood the test of hard use, especially the test of time, can be considered science. That which has failed the testing of time, can be considered to be metaphysics. The problem here is many traditional interpretations of the bible, such as the ones that convicted Galileo, were originally influenced by the antique science of the height of the Greek culture. Many of those traditional interpretations persist today. Technology: Not to be confused with “science.” Technology is the art of the applications of the principles established in the various physical sciences (chemistry, mechanics, mineralogy, etc.) to manufacturing processes. As Clyde rightly describes, such things as how to harden and sharpen a stick in a fire, fall in the arena of technology, not science. Even so, that technology was not developed until after the understanding, or cognizance of the fact that a stick can be hardened in fire. Thus, the

www.ScienceAndTheBible.net © Copyright, 2009 Max B. Frederick. All rights reserved. 11 Email Exchange: Does the Bible Really Contain Science? 11/14/09 science of fire hardening a stick, pre-dates the technology of the art of stick hardening and sharpening by fire. But, the statements of science in the bible, such as, the statement that at one time the planet earth was covered with ocean and the waters stood over the mountains,17 do not fall into the same class of the art of stick sharpening. That statement is true science and has withstood the tests of hard use and time. However, to add to the confusion, the ancient Greek word from which technology is derived, has the meaning of knowledge or cognizance of facts, similar to their word for physics. The ancient legendary library of Science in Alexandria that was established about three hundred years before the time of Christ was named, in Greek, Bibliotheca Alexandrina, (literally translated technical library of Alexandria.) The same name, Bibliotheca Alexandrina, has been given to the recently resurrected18 Library of Science, in the same area. Thus adding to the confusion between the concepts of technology and science. Yet, it is simply understood by realizing that there is a close connection between technology and science. Technology is simply the practical application of science. Creation science Creation science, as taught by many modern time seminar speakers, is typically biblical interpretations based in ancient Greek, antique science, which is, in fact, metaphysics. This ancient antique science, which has failed the test of time and hard use, is pitted against the facts of true modern science. Typical creation science arguments are wrongful attempts to prove the interpretations of the science in the bible based on ancient antique science is the true interpretation, and a proper interpretation that is in accord with the rest of the bible (and with the facts of modern science,) is in fact false. Many bible and science presentations or debates are NOT in fact bible against science, but antique science versus modern science, where the bible scholar interprets the bible in the light of antique science rather than the rest of the bible. Of course, this puts the traditional creation science explanation at odds not only with the rest of the bible, but also at odds with the true facts as independently discovered by modern science. Popular Modern Science: The co-mingling of Serious Modern Science and Metaphysics. It should also be noted that the current popular usage of the word ‘science’ by the media, even by many scientists themselves, indicates it has already outlived even the rigorous definition preferred by modern scientists. Popular modern science of today, particularly as used by politicians and the news media places more emphasis on the agreement among humans than on the method by which that agreement is reached. Consensus seems to be more important than truth. Has this sprung from the misconception that peer review insures truth? If so, it means we have wrongfully returned to the reasoning of the ancient Greek philosophers as to the processes by which truth is established. The Decline of Reality in Popular Modern Science:

17 Ps. 104:6 in a description of the condition of the planet earth at a time near the beginning of the geologic column when the entire planet was covered with ocean and there were not yet any continents. 18 Bibliotheca Alexandrina - P.O. Box 138 - Chatby, Alexandria 21526, EGYPT www.ScienceAndTheBible.net © Copyright, 2009 Max B. Frederick. All rights reserved. 12 Email Exchange: Does the Bible Really Contain Science? 11/14/09

The human tendency to believe beyond what is known is insuppressible. It affects scientists and theologians alike. That commonality is illustrated by the speculations arising everywhere humans exist, from the local gossip to the national news to the pontifications of PhD’s, both in the realms of science and theology. When I was a young scientist in high school, the scientific method was at it’s height of the definition of science as reality in contrast to opinion. Dry lab: Dry-labbing is simply skipping the step of checking with reality. Typically a shortcut is taken that includes some model of reality rather than reality itself. In the 1950’s, when I was in high school, dry labbing19 in a science class laboratory was a form of cheating. Instead of actually performing an experiment, the results were guessed at, copied from someone else’s work, or simulated by working with a model rather than live data. Previously, this was not considered science, only hypothesizing. In the 1970’s, when I was a scientist in industry, I observed a slight change (among scientists) in the definition of science toward dry-labbing, the antithesis of science. With the advent of the age of computers, dry labbing by math modeling had gained respectability and was no longer considered to be cheating. Instead of working in the real physical realm, a computational or applied mathematical analysis is done on a computer-generated model to simulate a phenomenon in the physical realm.20 This form of cheating had gained respectability such that the answers derived from math modeling began to be accepted as truth. In reality, however, math modeling leads to the same self-confidence that falsity is truth as was the downfall of ancient scientists (now called great philosophers) of the ancient Greek era. In my career as a scientist, I personally have witnessed the failure of math models to accurately replicate reality. The current hysteria over climate change is a classic example of the failure of faulty mathematical modeling. When the model does not accurately represent reality, the results are not reliable. Future history will relegate the climate change “science” of today to the annals of metaphysics. Think Tank: The rise in Popularity of think tanking has been exaggerated in the minds of some to be science. Rather, it is only the first step in science, that step being the generation of multiple working hypotheses. Too often, all other steps are skipped and the results of think tanking are considered to carry the weight of truth. This is just a first step toward the decline into Science by Consensus. Science by Consensus: Michael Crichton has adequately described the fallacy of science by consensus. Two references can be read on the internet rather than my further elaborating here. A summary can be found at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/is_there_a_consensus_in_scienc.html and the full speech, Aliens Cause Global Warming, can be read here: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

19 http://www.itvdictionary.com/definitions/labbed_definition.html 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_lab www.ScienceAndTheBible.net © Copyright, 2009 Max B. Frederick. All rights reserved. 13 Email Exchange: Does the Bible Really Contain Science? 11/14/09

Summary: True Science IS Found in the Bible: Science, according to the time honored definition, existed over three thousand years ago, and is recorded in the bible. That recorded science, is illustrated by the knowledge of facts concerning a specific field of information that is today recognized as being within the realm of science. In the bible, those known facts are woven into an organized presentation that demonstrates understanding of that specific field of science. That understanding or cognizance, is greater than could be expected from rational explanation by the hypothesis of gradual accumulation of knowledge in the realm of science. General knowledge of many of the facts woven into that tapestry was lost to scholars for thousands of years, and re-discovered by modern science using the methods of modern science, in recent times. This re-discovery of the same scientific information, the same cognizance and organization of the same facts, validates the original existence of that same science. For factual information to be scientific information, by the time honored definition, there is no requirement that it be discovered via the scientific method, nor is there any requirement that it be expressed as a mathematical formula, nor is there any requirement to explain a philosophical why.. The only requirement is for it to be true, known, and be organized in such a way that humans realized it to be true facts of reality. A plain statement of fact followed by another plain statement of fact is sufficient. The addition of a philosophical explanation as to why goes beyond the realm of science, but does not nullify the presence of science leading up to that explanation Even the casual mention of a successive series of true items concerning the physical environment, that are arranged in a logical order is sufficient to qualify the information to be scientific information. Rather than argue the point that scientific information is found in the bible, and verified by modern science, a simple example should suffice. Nowhere in the bible is true science more aptly demonstrated than in the 104th Psalm. A casual observation reveals knowledge of a few obvious facts that appear to be discoveries of modern science. They are obviously in the same order as modern science has discovered that they came into existence. Upon close scrutiny this initial observation is born out in great detail, especially when resorting to the original meanings in the original language of the ancient scripture. In that psalm, over three dozen details of the history of existence are mentioned. These details, if they were found somewhere other than in the bible, would be considered to be evidence of the author’s knowledge of true science. The tapestry into which they are woven includes the fact that each detail is mentioned in the order that it first occurred in the development of the existence of the universe, the planet earth, the ecology, and life in it. These facts, and the order in which they are presented has withstood the test of time and the test of hard use. This endurance is verified by the same factual conclusions and the same order of events being independently discovered and verified by modern science. A fifteen page detailed explanation of the science in the 104th Psalm is found at: http://www.scienceandthebible.net/articles/ACommentaryOnPsalm104.pdf

The following is just a summary of the more obvious. Psalm 104 items: Modern Science Discoveries: In verse 2, light is mentioned. Light is one of the first things that came into existence with the big bang. Later in verse 2, the expansion of the The expansion of the universe began universe is mentioned. with the big bang and continues to happen after the big bang. In verse 4, The laying of the foundations The “foundations of the earth” is that of the earth is mentioned. “Earth,” in the layer under the continents that holds bible, generally means dry land, them up by the equivalent of flotation. continents, not the planet earth. Modern science calls it the Mantle. In verse 6, that foundation becomes covered Modern science has discovered that with ocean. There is no dry land, there after the mantle cooled sufficiently, are no continents. water covered the whole planet earth and there were no continents. Later, the continents emerged from below sea level. In verse 8, the mountains go up and the After the continents emerged, the valleys go down. principle of isostacy operated to cause mountains to go up and valleys to go down. In verse 9, the continents remain Once the continents emerged, they above sea level. remained above sea level. In verses 10 through 28, ecology is established. Once continents remained above sea land based ecology developed. In verse 29, ecology dies. Modern science calls this a mass extinction. In verse 30, life is renewed. Modern science calls this punctuated equilibrium. These items are blatantly obvious facts that modern science has verified. And the order of their mention is the same order in which they occurred. If we look closer, we can find many more items mentioned in the order that modern science has verified. It is obvious that in Psalm 104, the bible actually contains factual information about a topic that is normally considered the realm of science. It is also obvious that the information is organized in a way that indicates whoever organized it was actually cognizant of its significance. The information and its organization makes it obvious that it is science by the time honored definition of science, but not by the more limited definition of modern science.

In addition, the woven tapestry, of the presentation and the endurance of the facts and organization through the test of hard use satisfies Clyde’s definition of true science.