Originally Posted by
Trophy Wife
That second sentence is like nails on a chalkboard, so let me begin with that. Science does not require 'belief'. Science is based on the aggregation of observations in the natural world and it is not biased or partial to any ideology, or at least not on purpose. It is the act of posing queries and verifying their veracity. Anyone equipped to do so can verify claims by other scientists should their credibility come into question. Now that that's out of the way..
I read the article and wasn't impressed, unfortunately. The amount of mental gymnastics one has to do to reconcile the two ideas is staggering. On a personal level, you can certainly come up with some sort of agreement with yourself to justify there being science in the Bible. I don't know how you'd live with that cognitive dissonance, but that's certainly up to you.
Asserting that scientific accuracy is found in the Bible or any other holy text presents a number of issues:
1. The Bible was not intended to document scientific observations, but to spread the word of God, and there is no indication that the former is true.
2. If the Bible depends on scientific observations for value, that value could easily be detracted when errors are found, and those are plentiful.
3. Claiming the Bible is scientifically accurate gives a free pass to any other religious text that makes the same claims.
Claims that there is science in holy books is as valid as saying Nostradamus' predictions are true. It is the act of taking an arrow and drawing a bulls-eye around it, which is that this article based its findings on.
Simply put, it's retroactive shoehorning.