I’ve heard some truly abnormal arguments in my day. Heck, I’ve proponed some truly abnormal arguments in my day. But this one may take the cake.
Of course, I’ve heard before that religion provides some sort of unchanging foundation for a whole raft of things including our knowledge of the world. Both creationists and many evolution accepting people of faith think something like that. But I’ve never heard before that continuing revision of science books somehow gives the supposedly unchanged Bible demonstrates the Bible’s authority when compared with those ever changing science books. I always thought that those who saw the Bible as having special authority thought this on faith alone or as factor in a faith tradition with which they identified. It never occurred to me that a supposed lack of revisions had anything to do with it. Perhaps I’ve led too sheltered a life.
Putting aside the still unresolved and unresolvable issue of canon, does anyone actually believe that the books of the Bible didn’t go through “revisions” in their formative period? In addition, I’m pretty sure the Bible in question was a translation, probably the Authorized (King James) Version. Have translations been without revision? Even the Authorized Version went through a several revisions between 1611 and 1770. Now, granted, these revisions, unlike many revisions to science books, only involved errors in translation, and changes in spellings and punctuation conventions.
Based on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher’s (aka Joe the Plumber) youth pastor’s argument alone, I think one would reasonably conclude that his science book was more likely approximately correct than the Bible. The science book revisions happen (in part) because of some improvement in knowledge, because of some closer approximation of the fact of the matter. After all, people do learn things. At least some people do. It appears that even Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher once did.
Via Ed Brayton