Photo of Dale Stuckwish From His http://www.examiner.com/creationism-5-in-pittsburgh/dale-stuckwish profile

It turns out, Someone at the Examiner.com has posted a commentary endorsing biblical creationism, more specifically the “science” in the Bible. Its also not the first time he’s peddled creationist pseudoscience over there either. Dale Stuckwish has apparently been writing creationist garbage for the Examiner website for awhile. “The Bible’s factual and scientific accuracy proves that it is the Word of God” is just the latest example. In it, Stuckwish writes,

The Bible is true not only in statements about man, but also in its statements about everything. Though the Bible is not a scientific manual, it is scientifically accurate, even from its earliest pages, which were written nearly 4,000 years ago.

Um, no its not very accurate. As Rational Wiki has pointed out there isn’t much science in the Bible. One of the really ridiculous examples of “science” in the Bible Rational Wiki mentions Is how Jacob supposedly bred his goats.

Ironically, the Bible contains what some hold is a description of artificial selection (also known as selective breeding). Specifically, in the book Genesis, Jacob affects the mating habits of goats that he is tending, as part of a scheme to take ownership of his father-in-law Laban’s herd. The result is that as the goats multiply, a larger and larger percentage of the offspring become dark colored, spotted, and speckled, and as a consequence, the property of Jacob. Genesis was written a little before Darwin was born. Of course, the Genesis account does not explain the biological mechanisms of this process, or how it occurs naturally.

On the other hand, the bible states that Jacob watered his flocks in front of dark colored sticks, and “And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted…” Genesis 30:37-39. Which would suggest that Jacob did not use artificial selection, but rather magical thinking, making the Bible 0 for 0 on the Scientific Foreknowledge.

Oh, but of course, that’s not the end of what the Bible got wrong when it came to science. The Skeptics Annotated Bible lists more than a dozen scientific errors in the Bible.

Maybe we should look at some of Stuckwish’s specific claims. Lets see just how good or bad they really are.

Creation is made of particles, invisible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Atoms, and other invisible particles are part of everything made by God (John 1:3),(Colossians 1:16-17). The First three verses of Genesis accurately express the all known aspects of the Creation (Genesis 1:1-3).

I fail to see how Hebrews 11:3 in anyway even implies that there are the elementary particles that modern science discovered long after the Bible was written. Here just one translation from King James Bible online, other translations of that verse are listed on the same page.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

- King James Bible “Authorized Version”, Cambridge Edition

Okay, that was incredibly vague, and the other translation on that page don’t say anything about particles either.

Now for John 1:3, again, from the King James Bible Online,

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

- King James Bible “Authorized Version”, Cambridge Edition

Not any better, no mention of atoms or invisible particles in that translation of that verse either. Same goes for the other translations from different versions of the Bible on that page.

How about Colossians 1:16-17? No and No! Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:2, and Genesis 1:3, also do not describe how the science tells us the Earth or the Universe formed. In fact, even worse than the previous verses he quotes, those contradict scientific evidence. For one thing, the second verse makes it sound like the oceans were here before the earth was formed.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

- King James Bible “Authorized Version”, Cambridge Edition

At least that seems like the most logical interpretation to me. How is that even possible? Also in the third verse, where did the light come from? In The Bible, God doesn’t even create anything that remotely sounds like stars until Genesis 1:14. We also know for a fact that most stars in the Milky Way, along with the entire Universe, existed long before the Earth. The Sun couldn’t come into existence after the Earth was formed, unless the Earth formed around another star, and the sun captured it. There’s no evidence for that, is there? Even if there were, it wouldn’t be an origin for the Earth similar to the one found in Genesis.

The Bible Does not accurately describe how stars and planets form. The Bible says nothing about the real origins of our planet, not mention abiogenesis or evolution, both of which people like Stuckwish reject. So much for him being “pro science.”

I could literally go on and on. Stuckwish lists Bible verse after Bible verse that he claims reveal that the Bible understood how the universe works long before twenty first century science. Yet I think we can be confident that none of them says what he insists they say. His thinking really isn’t that much better than RoseAnn Salanitri, who I debunked awhile back. ( She’s the one who thought that if evolution was true, Eskimos should grow fur. )

Stuckwish concludes his apologetics with this statement.

The Bible is not a book of science, but wherever the Bible touches on science, it is accurate. This proves its divine origin, because all other ancient books are filled with scientific errors. Even science books just 100 years old are filled with errors

Well he got one thing right. The Bible is not a book of science. In fact anyone who got their science education from Bible, wouldn’t know much about science at all.