DOES SCIENCE NEED THE BIBLE AT LEAST IN SO FAR AS THE BIBLE INSISTS ON INTEGRITY AND TRUTHFULNESS?

This supposes, "The scientist is searching for truth. Thus science indicates a need for the scientists to follow ethical principles."

But the answer is that you can search for truth without it being about ethics. A scientist who just searches as accurately as they can without a code of ethics is still a scientist. Science is methodology and is about what is out there. It just happens that this coincides with truth seeking. A scientist can use ethics as a guide for working out how they are going to test things for truthfulness but ethics is not about God necessarily. Ethics and morality are not exactly the same thing. Ethics are rules about how a job is going to be done in line with your goals and your ethos in a helpful ordered way. Morality has loads of overlaps with this but is about justice and love and respect. Ethics is about order. Morality can command disorder such as when you have to take up arms against your oppressor.

People think that the Bible urges people not to change their views regarding anything it says while science is continually revising and updating. It was the norm for Jesus to answer a question with a question, Newman, R. Questioning Evangelism (Kregel Publications, 2007), p. 27. This is said to show that he encouraged people to think coherently and therefore scientifically where it was possible. Believers say he gave us the Holy Spirit to teach us all truth and that cannot happen unless we are willing to open our minds, John 14:26 “Holy Spirit … will teach you all things”. . But Jesus only permitted questioning within certain religious parameters. He even went as far as to accuse those who thought the Holy Spirit was doing fake casting out of demons of an unpardonable sin so that he could scare others off examining his religious affairs too closely.

Jesus said he was the way and the truth John 14:6, Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”. Believers say he wanted to save us through the word of God from the tyranny of opinion which can only lead to us being swept by every wind of doctrine, Ephesians 4:14, Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Jesus may have given us dogma. But the point is not that dogma and rules about what we are allowed to believe and not to believe save us from chaos. The point is, is the dogma and the rules about it justified? You can't set up rules about what to believe just for its own sake.

Science’s cardinal doctrine is that claims and opinions must have suitable support from evidence. If Jesus is the truth, and unbiased science is the truth, then both come from the God of truth. Truth cannot contradict truth. If Jesus was just as prone to error as anybody else, or if it cannot be proved that Jesus spoke only the truth, then science comes first. If it contradicts Jesus then drop Jesus.

The Bible forbids deceit even for a greater good Romans 3:7,8. Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! and Proverbs 29: 27 The righteous detest the dishonest; the wicked detest the upright.

That is good but Christianity with all its sects inventing new doctrines and new divisions does not take it seriously. At least science gives you the tools to check things yourself.

The Church says the scientist who obeys God’s command to love our neighbour as ourselves will want to know scientific truth and share it with others. Unless it is shared with other scientists, there will be no growth in scientific knowledge. But we must also praise the scientist who does not love his neighbour but who loves propagating scientific knowledge.

The claim that science and the Bible need each other in any sense is nonsense. It is an attempt to smokescreen the conflict between religion and science.