Science: an exodus from…

Science has brought us some of the greatest human advances in knowledge and discovery. Quantum physics, space travel, evolution, molecular biology, the workings of the universe and so on. Now this:

Moses might not have parted the Red Sea, but a strong east wind that blew through the night could have pushed the waters back in the way described in biblical writings and the Koran, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday…

His team pinpointed a possible site south of the Mediterranean Sea for the legendary crossing, and modeled different land formations that could have existed then and perhaps led to the accounts of the sea appearing to part.

The model requires a U-shaped formation of the Nile River and a shallow lagoon along the shoreline. It shows that a wind of 63 miles per hour, blowing steadily for 12 hours, could have pushed back waters 6 feet deep.

“This land bridge is 3-4 km (2 to 2.5 miles) long and 5 km (3 miles) wide, and it remains open for 4 hours,” they wrote in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS ONE.

“People have always been fascinated by this Exodus story, wondering if it comes from historical facts,” Drews said. “What this study shows is that the description of the waters parting indeed has a basis in physical laws.”

The Exodus is a popular favourite, as is pinpointing the date ofthe star of Bethlehem and thus it happened (or so the logic goes). But the more useful question (that is, one which we can more accurately and easily answer) is this: what has given rise to the rhetoric of science that allows its use in biblical studies to be curiously illogical and used in reports such as this and in documentaries?

And should we blame Dawkins or the Discovery Channel?


3 responses to “Science: an exodus from…

  1. Why blame Dawkins?

    ‘Miracles of Exodus’ by Colin Humphreys is a good place to start to find scientists explaining miracles.

  2. ‘Why blame Dawkins?’ – more the cultural impactof Dawkins, strong concern for science and scientific rhetoric. Not necessarily blaming Dawkins himself (who would almost certianly be as sceptical as anyone about the Exodus explanation).

  3. Personally, I find it is always a good idea to blame Dawkins as much as possible if for no other reason than that he cannot fathom that evolution and Christianity do not need to be mutually exclusive from any point of view other than the inerrentist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s