What's interesting is you think a random quote from a magazine article (which given when it was published I doubt you've actually ever read) is somehow meaningful and important.
But sure that could be said of ANY data when only looking retrospectively. The difference between interpretation and science is the making of predictions which can then be tested against data not used to make the prediction (best done with new data ie newly found fossils in this case). This could be said of any data set or any field of science (the best known examples being in physics at the moment).
And which of these ways of thinking predicted the existence of fossils of extinct apes with varying degrees of human like characteristics?
If you want to talk science then you need to talk about predictions, all you care about is retrospectively re-interpreting data so it fits your preconceived world view.
So why hasn't Genesis yielded any predictions which have later been found to match reality? What new discoveries has using Genesis found us?
Oh that's right, all it's ever done is looked at what real scientists doing real science have found and said "we could have predicted that with Genesis too!" except fort he fact they didn't until after it was found...
:nono: Overstated case. All scientists were pretty much Christian scientists until rather recently in history and all would have attributed Bible knowledge (in fact many scientist also gave a good many scripture quotes) to their process. That means a good deal of science today was done by 'real' scientists who held to a Biblical model.
There seems to be a desire amongs 'atheist' scientists to separate science from Christianity but you'll never be able to do it because it is a part of all of our history. There are a good many scientists today that are Christians and are significantly contributing to science. Don't overtly ostracize those who are actually doing good in the world, even if you are trying to use science to separate yourself from God (it doesn't work that way, a good many Brits have tried. Failed).
There isn't a lot of interest in the Bible from science (archeology is yet), but the Bible will continue to help science 1) to challenge a few longheld science beliefs, which is a good thing, even from a science perspective 2) It will be used to help the world grab truth and embrace it (as it always has) and 3) It will inspire at least Christians, to wonder at the universe and treat it with awe and respect by those Christians who become scientists, thus it will give science a productive people who love science, if not only for the fewer reasons of their secular counterparts.
Genesis, I think still gives a good challenge to science to think of a sustainable echo system as it is portrayed in chapters 1 and 2. A primordial development is significantly problematic without sustainability: As I said earlier in thread, I have tried to produce a viable eco-system lately in a tank of water. Everything has to be set right or fish and frogs die off. Somehow, a perfect balance HAD to be set up on earth for life to sustain and flourish. Reading Genesis may very well lead a scientist to ask those kinds of questions and begin working on viability as well as help us do a better job ourselves doing such. Genesis is more the springboard to these discoveries.
Another? We find in Job two beasts that resemble dinosaurs and it raises the question of man and dinosaur coexistence. Were ALL dinosaurs wiped out at the time of Job?
These are all 'science' questions that stem from a Biblical context. Would a secular scientist likely begin toward these? Probably not, but what may be found from such discovery certainly can benefit the field, even if one doesn't buy into the God from those documents. The historical part alone is enough to contribute to science and it is odd to me that a scientist could learn from Mayans or Egyptians, but want to forgo reading the Bible as if THAT God is a scientific thread. How could He be? :idunno: I believe He exists. If I'm right, He is a friend to science. It makes no sense for one to become an atheist 'because of' science. It does make sense reversed, however, that one who wants no god, would hide behind science or anything else that would allow that denial.
An atheistic repainting is also failing to recognize that the field of science, is not, in fact, atheistic at all. There are a great many Christians in the field of science. I think a few atheists are overtly optimistic and overtly given to gross exaggeration, though there is a trend in academic science circles to oust Christians. Such is against at least our rules here in the U.S. and must stop. we don't allow discrimination based on religion here. Some would likely toss our Constitution.
