Some time back I posted an entry on my Bible Study Journal about how I explained the meaning of adultery in terms that can be understood by young children. The reason this came up, is because we have been reading through the Bible in our daily morning worship time, and we came upon a passage that speaks of adultery. I do this sort of teaching because the Bible says we should diligently and continuously teach the Bible and God's laws to our children. (Deuteronomy 6:6-9.) So I started at the beginning of the Bible and explained each passage in terms the family members can understand.

Well, it turns out that the things I said I teach my children about adultery are being taught to Kindergarten public school students. It seems that there is a high rate of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease among teenagers. The public school system decided to try to do something about it. So they went looking for evidence-based studies to find out what works. And what did they find out works? Teach 'em early! So individual schools can now opt to start sex education in Kindergarten!

Of course, the young kids are taught age appropriate concepts. In Kindergarten and 1st grade they learn all about appropriate and inappropriate touching and "private space." Private space is defined as the parts of your body covered by your swimsuit. (Would that be a bikini? Or the old fashioned one-piece swimsuit with a skirt?) Seems quite similar to what I have been teaching my children from a young age.

This is not some little public school district doing this. This is a county wide initiative that includes a large city.

Again, the reason they are teaching these things to young children is because the evidence-based studies they reviewed show that it works. The Bible has been telling parents to do this all along. One more area where scientific evidence is in agreement with the Bible.

NOTE: This post is based on radio news reports. I do not have links to any of the studies involved. If anybody knows of where these are posted on the internet, perhaps they can send me a comment with the URL to the study.

There are two passages (in the KJV) that mention "the four corners of the earth." Isaiah 11:12 says, "And he shall . . . gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." And Revelation 7:1 says, ". . . I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth . . . ." Additionally, Mark 13:27 and Revelation 7:1 mention the "four winds of the earth", and Revelation 20:8 tells of the "four quarters of the earth."

These verses have been interpreted by many people to mean that the Bible is saying that the earth is flat and rectangular. So are people who believe the Bible to be members of the Flat Earth Society?

Hardly! There is a Hebrew work chuwg (Strong's Number 2328 and 2329) that is used to describe the earth in three places in the Old Testament. This Hebrew word chuwg means "circle."

Job 26:10 - "He has inscribed a circle [2328] on the surface of the waters . . . ." (NAS) This appears to be a reference to Genesis 1:2. Tradition has it that the book of Job was written by Moses. If so, then Moses and Job were aware that the earth is circular.

Proverbs 8:27 - "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep." (NAS) This also appears to be a reference to Genesis 1:1-2. So Solomon was aware that the earth is circular.

Isaiah 40:22 - "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." (NAS) Isaiah also describes the earth as being circular.

So if the Bible describes the earth as being circular, then why does it also speak of the earth as having "four corners," "four winds," and "four quarters"? Does the Bible contradict itself? Let's examine the use of each of these phrases.

"Four winds" - The wind is commonly described as coming from the north, south, east, or west. These are the four general directions. The term "four winds" can also mean to/from every direction. (See, for example, Jeremiah 49:36, Matthew 24:31, and Mark 13:27.) The term "four winds" does not in itself imply that the earth is flat or rectangular.

"Four quarters" - The four quarters of the earth is simply another way of saying "the whole earth." This could be applied to a rectangle or a sphere. It has nothing to do with whether the earth is flat or round.

"Four corners" - If the earth is round, why does the Bible refer to its "four corners"? Go to the store and buy a map of your city, state, or country. Open the map. What are you likely to see? The map is rectangular with four corners. Does this mean that the cartographers (map makers) think the earth is flat and rectangular? No! Even so, nearly every map has four corners. It is simply a convenient way of picturing the earth. So when the Bible speaks of the "four corners of the earth," it is simply referring to every direction. That is why Revelation 7:1 pairs the "four winds" (every direction) with the "four corners" (every direction). Isaiah 11:12 is also a parallel to Zechariah 2:6. Isaiah warns that the Israelites will be scattered to "the four corners of the earth" and Zechariah states that this happened by scattering them "as the four winds of heaven."

In summary, when each verse is understood in its proper connection we see that the Bible does NOT teach that the earth is flat. It teaches that the earth is circular. There is no conflict here between the Bible and science. The conflict between the Church and science on this point in the time of Galileo was because the Church's traditions were based on a wrong interpretation of the Bible.

Several months ago there was a lot of buzz about the court cases concerning teaching "intelligent design" in the public schools. It seemed that the central question was whether "intelligent design" is scientific.

Our local NPR affiliate had an hour long interview/call-in show with a scientist. I don't remember his name, but I remember some things he said. (1) In order for a theory to be scientific, there must be some way to prove it false. (2) "Intelligent design" is suitable for the social studies class, but not for the science class.

This scientist asserted that the reason the Biblical story of creation is not scientific is because there is no way to test whether it is false. Think about that. The reason the Bible is not scientific is because humans have no way to demonstrate that it is false. So one reason scientists don't believe the Bible is because they can't think of a way to disprove it!

This scientist asserted that the theory that human beings evolved from lower forms of life is scientific because there is a test that would demonstrate it to be false. Namely, if you found a human fossil beside a dinosaur fossil, it would prove evolution to be false. This summer I had the opportunity to ask Elaine Kennedy, formerly of the Geoscience Research Institute, and now a professor of Geology at Southern Adventist University, about whether this would prove evolution to be false. She said that there is no way to prove evolution false. (By the way, Elaine Kennedy once was a theistic evolutionist, but is now a creationist. Read her testimony here.)

I didn't get a chance to ask her why she thought evolution cannot be proved false. But I think it has to do with the fact that anytime a pet scientific theory encounters a problem, they usually tweak the theory. Scientists are constantly tweaking the age of the earth, the age of the universe, and how they think the species evolved. I hear it reported that nobody really subscribes to evolution the way Darwin described it. For example, Stephen J. Gould proposed "punctuated equilibrium" because the data to support Darwin's theory is just plain missing. (See the PBS Evolution Library and Kurt Wise Punc Eq Creation Style.)

So there you have it. The evolutionary scientist says creation cannot be proved false, and the creationist scientist says evolution cannot be proved false. So by this definition, neither the Bible nor the theory of evolution from lower forms of life to higher forms of life is scientific. That leaves both theories in the realm of religion. One is espoused by most people who believe in a God, and the other is espoused by most people who believe there is no god.

Now let me be clear about one thing. We have observed living organisms evolve from one species to another. Darwin saw that in the birds. That's also how we got most domestic species of dogs. Evolution on that scale is an observable fact. But nobody has ever demonstrated that one phylum ever evolved into another phylum. That's why Stephen J. Gould needed punctuated equilibrium to try to explain evolution.

I think the radio talk show guest was on to something when he suggested that "intelligent design" be taught in the social studies class. I think they should remove all discussion of human origins from the science class. Let them teach both evolution and creation in the social studies class. They already teach world religions in 6th grade social studies. Along with the various religions, they can present the theory of origins espoused by each religion. Evolution fits neatly in the religion of atheism.

If both evolution and creation were relegated to social studies, there would be no reason for a student to make an artificial choice between science and religion. After all, strictly speaking, neither creation nor evolution as a theory of origins is scientific. Both are a matter of personal belief.

God has demonstrated the truth of His word to me many times. I believe Him when He says He created the world in six days. (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:8-11.)

"Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony. By different methods, and in different languages, they witness to the same great truths. Science is ever discovering new wonders; but she brings from her research nothing that, rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. The book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works.

"Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years."--Ellen G. While, Science and the Bible

The preceding is the first two paragraphs from one of the best summaries of the issues of interpreting the Bible and science that I have seen. I would encourage anyone to follow the link and read the whole article.

I am not a scientist. I am a mathematician. As a mathematician, I tought senior physics in high school one year. One of my students has definitely surpassed me. He now has a Ph.D. in physics.

When I was in high school, my Algebra II teacher said, "I can prove anything if you will allow me to make up my own first assumption." That is, if I can chose my own first Postulate, then I can prove anything I want. Throughout my mathematical studies and other studies I have found that to be pretty much true.

Science is supposed to be based on observation of fact. But my training in mathematics and logic has taught me that behind every proof is one or more unprovable "facts" (formally known Postulates or Axioms). There is always something you assume to be true, but which you cannot prove to be true.

If you throw out the postulates and include only recorded data, I have found that there is no contradiction between science and the Bible. I must add that you have to take the Bible as it reads, rather than imposing your own assumptions on it. So if you throw out your own bias and compare what the Bible actually says with what science has actually observed, there is harmony.