Although some of what Richard says is addressed in my article on concordism, he makes many points that are not. I was originally simply going to post a response in his comments section, but I want this to be easily available to my audience as well. I have several points to make in response to his article, so I will simply go one by one.
1. He says "The bible teaches us about God, not about science. Scientific is a term that does not apply".
Although the bible's main purpose is to teach us about God, he assures us that it is an inerrant text. The traditional (and I think, accurate) doctrine of inerrancy is simply that the bible is without error. Period. There is no "the bible is only accurate on theology, not science or history."
Problem is, when you divide human knowledge into categories you run into issues with subjectivity. A lot of what people call "science" is just statements about nature. Science itself is a method, not a type of fact.
So when Genesis 1 says that God created plants, then fish, then the beasts of the earth, and then finally humans, in that order, either you believe that statement or not. If you deny it, you either must reinterpret the text or deny the traditional doctrine of inerrancy.
If the Holy Spirit can inspire the authors of a particular book of the bible to get it's facts straight about God, why not all it's other facts? These accuracies do produce a powerful apologetic for the bible. Which brings us to...
2. He says:
"I do not think that God was giving little clues that would only be understood tens of thousands of years later. When you are trying to understand a text, you need to ask what the author would have written and how his audience would have understood it. It seems to be an extremely self-centered way to interpret Scripture to think that it is all about us.
You might as well say that there is a clear reference to your family and that God is speaking directly to you. How would the people in AD 500 have understood that reference to your family or the various scientific mysteries that were revealed? The Bible is for all people at all times."
First..."tens of thousands of years later"?
So, he seems to have a misunderstanding here. The idea that the earth is round and isn't covered with a dome (as some suggest it describes) is not incomprehensible to ancient people. Neither is the expansion of space. It would only be incomprehensible if it described the mechanism of those things.
I don't think the bible was giving little hints people would only understand thousands of years later either. But I don't think getting its facts straight about the order of creation, the shape of the earth, the presence of features on the seafloor, the water cycle, etc, would make it incomprehensible to earlier generations. It may be inconsistent with what their prior cosmology had established, but that doesn't mean they couldn't understand it.
For example, imagine we lived in a world that was shaped like a ring. If the world really was shaped like a ring, and the bible described it as such, but we believed the earth was round, would we not still be able to understand the text? That description wouldn't be useless until future scientists discover that the earth really is shaped like a ring.
Scripture *is* to all generations, which is exactly why it gets *all* it's facts straight, regardless of the misconceptions of the authors or our modern society.
3. "It is illegitimate to prove inspiration by appealing to scientific miracles. Brilliant philosophers in history were also ahead of their time"
Note: This isn't actually from the article, this is from one of his tweets. But it sums up his position pretty nicely I think.
This is a bad analogy. Philosophers can "get ahead" simply by being smarter and thinking more, in addition to their studies. Certain facts about nature cannot simply be determined by your intelligence. You could triple Einstein's intelligence and place him back in ancient Sumeria, but without the knowledge and tools available in the post-industrial revolution era, he wouldn't come up with relativity or discover a great number of facts about the natural world.
So, some things the bible describes, like the features at the bottom of ocean, could not simply be discerned by the author being scientifically "ahead of their time". You simply cannot compare philosophy and science in this context.
4. He says "When Job and Isaiah say that God defeated the Leviathan (Isaiah 27:1), the author is not expressing that there is literally a giant sea monster that will devour the world. Rather, he is expressing that God is powerful and we can put our trust in him. We do not need to fear other gods or give our devotion to them out of fear. God crushes the Leviathan. But this is a theological teaching rather than a scientific one."
Although this is a minor point, I feel the need to address it. "Leviathan" need not mean a literal sea monster as we moderns picture. Many scholars believe the term simply refers to terrifying *real* animals that dwell in the waters. Such as sharks, cetaceans, hippos, and crocodiles.
So, the bible isn't describing an imaginary scenario here to teach a theological point. Leviathan refers to real animals.
5. I will say lastly that I do agree with parts of his article. His points about secondary causes, demons vs. bacteria, and the days of Genesis were pretty much spot on in my opinion. But I disagree with some of these other points enough that I was compelled to write this response. No ill will towards Richard though.
Thanks for reading! Best wishes to Richard Bushey.