Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 07:46:22 -0400 (edt) From: Sam Damon Subject: Contradicting the Bible > In that case, the media needs to be strongly criticized. If there is > factual errors contained in the Bible, then someone would have pointed > them out in a factual, non-political context unless there was a covert > effort to silence such ideas. > While the media is general owned by rich, white conservatives, it can't be > possible that such information has not been made available to the given > media outlets--especially with the proliferation of cable. Not available? Unless you've done a massive scan of the media, you can't make such a generalized statement. Here's a recent example of such Biblical-debunking in a respected mainstream medium: The New York Times. On Thursday, April 10, 1996, the front page of the C-section had an article titled, "Hatching a Novel Theory About the 10 Biblical Plagues." In the lengthy piece, Dr. John Marr gives scientific explanations for scenarios such as the "bloody" rivers and ponds (red algae which sucked the oxygen out of the water and killed the fish), and the 5th Plague which only killed hoofed animals (probably African horse sickness and Bluetongue). In addition, PBS had a special last year on Creationism, which featured speakers from both sides. Among the respected non-Creationistz were Stephen Jay Gould from Harvard and Eugenie Scott from Stanford (I believe). A televised visit to the Museum of Creation "Science" showed just how unscientific their theories were. The theories were taken directly from the Bible. As for cable TV, such programs would most likely be relegated to Public Access channels which are not broadcsted nationally. My memory is fuzzy but I think Manhattan Cable in NYC (now called Time Warner Cable) had some sporadic programs like that. Unlike evangelical programs which tries to relate Biblical passages to current events, there is only so much one can say in Biblical debunking. Certainly not enough to make a weekly broadcast. And unlike Biblical academic, which is widely taught at universities (i.e. Harvard's wonderfully liberal Trinity School), I'm aware of no classes that teach the Bible in conjunction with the sciences (i.e. the Scientific Method). Indeed, one poll showed that scientists are generally ignorant of the Bible, although they are not necessarily atheists. Since there is virtually no such interdisciplinary academic support, it is unreasonable to expect widespread publication of this topic in the pop media. There are, however, at least also two journals devoted to skepticism, sponsored by groups with international chapters: The Skeptic, and The Skeptical Inquirer (I need to renew my memberships). Although both focus more on scientific ignorance (re: astrology, the New Age, certain alternative medical modalities, etc) than religion, there's been some good articles dealing with Biblical inconsistencies. Free Inquiry is a related journal devoted to Secular Humanism. Either Free Inquiry or Skeptical Inquirer used to have a regular column titled, The Biblical Scorecard, where passages from the Bible were systematically debunked. All the columns were collected in a book by Prometheus Press, but it's no longer available. Most of the article have copiously referenced footnotes, which is important for someone in research like me. The Skeptical Inquirer also had an excellent posthumous article by famed scifi writer, Isaac Asimov, saying why he was an atheist and not afraid of hell. I don't have the piece on hand but I believe he used many scientific arguments. I'll have to check my office files. I think I also have a piece titled "God's Follies" which summarized many Biblical fallacies. Unfortunately, it was poorly written due to the author's attempt to put too much information into too little space. One of the above groups also just built a new high tech thinktank in Upstate New York to study these issues. I hope to visit it in a few months. Their board has some of the biggest names in science, education and the humanities. They also sponsor international conferences, which I'll post here in the future. Among their more famous members are The "Amazing Randi" who makes his living as a skeptic (i.e. he hosted PBS' recent NOVA special on psychics, and was hired by the respected journal Nature to verify an article they published supporting homeopathy. The article raised many eyebrows, especially when published by such a prestigious journal, but Randi debunked it. Great study in scientific tomfoolery.), and Martin Gardner, the former Mathematical Recreation writer for Scientific American and prolfic author of many science/math books (he had a great piece analyzing and debunking the shocking 1970's decision of the prestigious journal Science to publish a weak article "confirming" the powers of "psychic" Uri Geller). Gardner also wrote a very philosophical book where he explained why he is not a theist/deist. In it, he also explains why he isn't an atheist. An interesting book which I will get is titled "The Atheist Debater's Handbook" published by Prometheus Books. You can either order it directly from the publisher or have it special ordered at any large bookstore. They publish many other books on Biblical analysis, both pro and con. Excellent catalog. > Which brings up another question: Is there a web page which gives a > scientific account disproving information in the Bible? I haven't researched the subject in many months but an excellent place to start is the web page for Skeptical Inquirer. They have sample articles from every issue and many links to related sites. Membership information is also online. One of their hottest topics dealt with the supposed alien autopsy on FOX TV. Do a Yahoo or Magellan (or any other search engine via Netscape, for example) search on "Skeptical Inquirer" for their address. There is also at least one site devoted to atheism with a lengthy FAQ. Again, do a web search for the address. On the other hand, there are many sites devoted to Christianity and Biblical studies. Most are extremely homophobic, but one by a Korean Christian student at Stanford had some interesting things. His scientific background shows. I found his site because of a now defunct page he had on the study of paradoxes (mathematical and logical paradoxes/fallacies is one of my passions).