Where have all the Bill’s defenders gone?

Ethan over at SLCSPIN has posted a great insight yesterday, concerning why no defenders of Buttars Bill have shown up to defend the Bill (at least on the Senate Site):

In the past, sites that have brought up ID have received many different opinions. But then again, those were debates on Intelligent Design.

One excellent comment left at The Senate Site by Cliff was "in an attempt to avoid any reference to creationism, Mr. Buttars has produced a bill that actually says NOTHING."

I think that is the more compelling explanation for the silence. Intelligent Design is getting nowhere nationally right now so to avoid the problems of other states, Senator Buttars left out ID/Creationism which made the bill meaningless to the many ID supporters who normally show up for the debates.

ID supporters know that if they show up for this bill, they will fight a full Creation/Evolution debate in the Utah Capitol. But at the end of the day, even a hard fought victory brings them no closer to their goal.

Come to think of it, the only real defender of the Bill that has put pen to paper that I have seen has been a few letters to the editor in the Daily Herald (here, and here), by one Michael Dalton, a resident of Orem. (Please correct me if there have been others.)

Kill Buttars Bill: vol. 1

I noticed Buttars bill is being slaughtered over at the Senate Site. I think the number of comments, both there and in other places, represent at least a few more people to out-weigh the “‘eight or 10’ calls from parents statewide complaining their children are being taught they evolved from apes” that the Deseret News reports Buttars having mentioned receiving.

A few of my thoughts on Buttars Bill

With a few modifications for clarification, this is my comment on the Senate Site concerning Buttars Bill (BB).

BB: do not endorse a particular theory; and

The State of Utah and its Board of Education should endorse a particular theory. They should endorse the theory that the mainstays of the scientific community uphold, not the theories of fringe groups. If a fringe group is correct, then they will be able to show that scientifically and change what the scientific community believes, as so many other theorists have done in the past with other theories (including evolution). Since Creationism and Intelligent Design have not even come close to showing that their theories hold up scientifically they shouldn’t be considered on a par with evolution.

BB: stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is correct

Just what scientists are we talking about? I saw Dr. John Morris, from the Institute of Creation Research, speak the other day here in SLC at the local Calvary Chapel. He’s a geologists who wants you to believe concerning the origins of life and man just what the Bible says, which is a literal six-days of creation. His theories concerning the “origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race” won’t just wipeout evolution, but all of the earth sciences and most of chemistry with it. Geology as currently taught in class is practically a ploy of Satan, making people lose faith in the Bible. He’s out there trying to prove “scientifically” that his creation theory is correct, but he is only succeeding in proving his theory with pseudoscience.

Just because a “theory” has a good PR campaign to back it up doesn’t mean it is good science, nor should evolution be put into doubt just because pseudoscience says something different.

Buttars Bill itself

Well, Chris Buttars has posted his Bill on the Senate Site. Thank you. Here is a copy of it for your viewing pleasure. I’ll have to comment later, but don't let this stop any of you (my faithful readers) from commenting below.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah. . .

53A-13-101.7. Curriculum and policy on theories relating to the origins of life.

(1) In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race, consider opposing viewpoints, and form their own opinions, the Legislature desires to avoid the perception that all scientists agree on any one theory, or that the state endorses one theory over another.

(2) The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum requirements, consistent with Subsection (1), relating to instruction of students on theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race.

(3) The curriculum requirements described in Subsection (2) shall require that instruction to students on any theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, shall stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is correct.

(4) The State Board of Education shall:

(a) make rules, pursuant to Title 63, Chapter 46a, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, to fulfill the requirements of this section; and

(b) ensure that all policies and positions of the State Board of Education relating to theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race:

(i) do not endorse a particular theory; and

(ii) stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is correct.

Yes, more on Buttars bill

I have a few quick comments on the following Salt Lake Tribune article out on the December 24th. (article’s quotes bolded)

If teachers are required to teach that scientists don't agree how life originated, then it could lead students to wonder and ask what the other theories - including intelligent design - are. Buttars believes that would be a good thing.

Educators, however, fear the requirement could lead to discussions about religion in public schools, which the Utah Board of Education wants to avoid.

I wonder why educators would fear that.

“The almighty God that backs up my theory is bigger and greater and certainly much more true than the puny god that backs up yours! Therefore, my scientific theory condemns you and your theory to hell!”

Future science class essay question: If some other un-named theory is true, does that mean those who believe in evolution will be damned to Hell or to Outer Darkness (depending of course on which Utah religion you adhere to) or is there some hope for them?

"The bill almost says what should come out of the mouths of teachers . . . it's absurd," [Carol Lear] said. "I think this is a thinly veiled attempt to make the state board do what the board has unanimously said it does not want to do."

Proposing legislation that deals with curriculum is something Buttars can do, he said.

"The state Board of Education is not sovereign. There is only one sovereign and that is the state," he said.

You are Wrong, Buttars! God is the one sovereign, not the state. Heresy! (Isn’t it great when we mix politics and religion together.)

Rep. Margaret Dayton, R.-Orem, chairwoman of the House Education Standing Committee, said the bill is uncharted territory for Utah, but she does think what is taught in schools should not be left up solely to state or federal guidelines.

"There should be local control . . . and parents should be able to have some say and involvement in curriculum in various communities," she said.

I agree, except when it comes to science we need to stick to science, not some pseudoscience with a good PR campaign.

Buttars Bill

It looks like Buttars bill has been leaked, and both Deseret News and KSL have published portions of it as it stands now. I don’t have much time today so let me just make a few quick comments on some portions of the Deseret News article.

[Buttars proposal] aims to halt teachers from telling students they evolved from apes, Buttars said.

Maybe this isn’t all that significant, but evolution doesn’t say we evolved from apes. It says both humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Of course I am probably just splitting hairs here, but if you’re going to criticize evolution at least criticize it correctly.

"It doesn't hinder them about talking about evolution at all," Buttars said.

Neither did the Kansas School Board’s change of policy, nor Dover’s statement for that matter. But that didn’t stop the justified criticism and a court judgment.

“It's a small step, but it's a big step…”

And you can add – it’s a first step. If this bill passes there will be others. The goal being to get their foot in the door and to pry it open bit-by-bit.

Buttars says he has received "eight or 10" calls from parents statewide complaining their children are being taught they evolved from apes

That’s it! Eight to ten people! I wonder how many calls he has received from folks who think his ID idea is bad. I know he has received at least one – a letter from me!

After a local TV station reported about the bill, Buttars agreed to give the draft to the Deseret Morning News, saying "obviously, it's been leaked."

If anyone would be kind enough to pass me a copy of that bill, or post it on the web and let me know where it is, I’d be grateful. I’d like to read what it says as a whole.

[From the bills opening statement] In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race, consider opposing viewpoints, and to form their own opinions…

I think people are forgetting something that I know from experience (and I know this would be a little controversial to say, but I think it should be discussed more in relation to this issue) – propaganda works, peoples opinions are being manipulated, and many of those who are backing ID and creationism are much more adept at propagandizing than those who support evolution. So the idea to let teens “form their own opinions” may sound altruistic, but the goal here is to suppress good science for religious purposes.

"The bill avoids talking about specifically the theory of evolution or intelligent design, but it's clear it's asking for other theories to be discussed, and there are many, many theories about the origin of life that have no scientific basis," said [state curriculum director Brett Moulding].

The goal is obvious – to discredit evolution, a solid scientific theory, to reduce it to just one among many “theories”, and thus allowing the door to open for other pseudoscientific theories to compete with it on an equal footing.

Now I could get nasty here and exclaim that this opens up the door for people to teach Navajo creation stories in science classes, but that would be hyperbole. None the less, for those interested, I might recommend a book, Dine Bahane: The Navajo Creation Story, by Paul G. Zolbrod, it’s got good reviews on Amazon (an authority on quality books) and it looks like it would make a great textbook for science class. Plus, that theory has historical precedence for Utah – it’s been taught here longer than biblical creationism or evolution combined. And the teens I am sure would love to experiment with some of those puberty rite rituals that are related to the “theory”.

“This decision is a poster child for a half-century secularist reign of terror”

Okay, this classic quote in regards to Judge Jones decision on ID is brought to you by Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. And those creationists accuse us evolutionists of vilifying them and their ID theory. Well, there is a reason why we sometimes do that, and here is part of it:

"This decision is a poster child for a half-century secularist reign of terror that's coming to a rapid end with Justice Roberts and soon-to-be Justice Alito, … This was an extremely injudicious judge who went way, way beyond his boundaries -- if he had any eyes on advancing up the judicial ladder, he just sawed off the bottom rung."

Oohh, don’t you just feel that Christ-like love!

Brief update for Utah

I read the Salt Lake Tribune’s editorial and whole heartedly support its position. Also, check out Bagley’s cartoon!



I wrote this letter to the editor concerning another letter in the Daily Herald:

In his letter, Michael Dalton assumes way too much about evolutionists who believe in God, his comment that evolutionists “cannot brook even the slightest hint that a creator might have been involved” in the creation and design of life is simply not true. I, as both a Christian and an evolutionist, have a very big view of God. To us on a human level, the “pure chance” of evolution may seem chaotic, out of control and beyond the pale of divine order, but I doubt God is even bothered by it. I am sure he positively understands it and sees chaos, randomness and chance as just another part of his created order. I can imagine he is even constantly amazed by it, especially considering his limitless attention span and his incapacity for boredom. When I think about it I stand in awe of God when I look at his extraordinary creation and design of evolution.

And here are a couple of excerpts from articles concerning the testability of ID. The first are comments made by Michael Behe in an interview in Beliefnet:

Judge Jones argues that while Darwinian theory "cannot yet render an explanation on every point" of the natural world, that "should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classrooms." So he says intelligent design is untestable and therefore not a scientific method. What do you say about that?

I think that's simply untrue. Intelligent design is testable. Some scientists have tried to argue that it is false—[but] you can't say that intelligent design is falsifiable, as some scientists have argued and that it is untestable.

Is it verifiable?

Can you confirm it? Well, intelligent design is an inductive argument. In other words, whenever we have seen a particular kind of phenomenon, it has always been produced by a particular kind of cause. So whenever we see complex functional systems, it's always been our experience that they arise by purposeful design. And the way one refutes an inductive argument is by finding an exception to it. For example, if you say that all swans are white, the only way you can test that proposition or falsify it, is to find a swan that is not white. It doesn't do to keep on finding more swans that are white.

In fact, a number of philosophers of science have argued that scientific theories are tested more by withstanding falsification than they are by confirmation.

You're saying that the argument for intelligent design is falsifiable?

Yes, but it has not been falsified.

On what basis do you contend that it is falsifiable?

If somebody went into a laboratory and showed that random mutation and natural selection produced some new, complex system, then it would be falsified on that basis, because intelligent design, at least as I have formulated it, says that these complex systems that we see in the cell require intelligent activity to produce them. So that would show that they did not require intelligent activity

But William Saletan in his article in Slate makes some interesting comments concerning this testability:

… some folks have argued that ID is testable. Michael Behe, the chief scientific witness for ID in the Dover trial, says you could watch a bunch of bacteria in a lab to see whether, through evolution, they produced a flagellum. If they did, it would show that natural causes can account for the flagellum. If they didn't, it would show that natural causes can't account for it, so the cause must be supernatural.

Three months ago, when the trial was getting started, I said this testability claim was a ruse. Here's my argument: The theory that's being tested in the flagellum experiment is evolution. If it fails, ID would be vindicated only to the extent that ID consists of saying evolution would fail. That doesn't make ID an explanatory theory.

Jones makes the same point. "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed," he writes. He cites a 1982 court ruling that shredded this "contrived dualism"—the bogus assumption that "all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism." He notes that another scientist who testified for ID in the Dover case admitted this: Irreducible complexity, the problem posed by the flagellum, "is not a test of intelligent design; it's a test of evolution."

Buttars is unfazed by Dover decision

The Deseret News has the best coverage on how Judge Jones decision will affect Utah. They report in regards to the decision:

But that won't affect a Utah legislator's plans to challenge how evolution is approached in public schools here.

"That ruling won't affect my bill at all. . . . My bill isn't written in that manner," Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, said. "Never did I say I thought we ought to teach any other faith-based program in a science class."

Last fall, Buttars did propose teaching intelligent design — the concept that life is too complex to be explained by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution alone — in a separate class, such as philosophy or humanities.

But he said even that idea will not be contained in his bill, which he revealed in a private Senate Republican caucus meeting Tuesday but declined to discuss publicly.

"It does challenge the school board, that they're going to have to rewrite their position on evolution to some degree," Buttars said. "Let me put it this way: There is no consensus in the scientific community regarding how life began . . . (so) to have a teacher teaching how life began and calling it fact really offends me. . . . I'm going to stop that. That's all I'm going to say right now."

He’s doing a Kansas maneuver folks – take out “natural causes” and make the school boards position statement deliberately vague. The point is to get their foot in the door, open things up for ID without mentioning those dangerously pesky little words, words like ‘intelligent design’, ‘creationism’, or Buttars personal choice ‘divine design’, or possibly the one we will probably be seeing more of here in the future ‘sudden-emergence theory’, words that can get his legislation in trouble with a federal court. Buttars bill will make Utah like Kansas – a laughing stock in the science world. Who would want to be like Kansas! Of all places – Kansas! Why would we want to do that to ourselves? There’s a bunch of crazy fundamentalist rednecks out there!

Also, in the news the Salt Lake Tribune cues in, the Daily Herald gives their opinion and Utah Representative Steve Urquhart blogs on the issue.

Dover: ID is judged and found wanting

The judgment on Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District was issued this morning by Judge John E. Jones, III, and he has ruled in favor of those opposing ID in schools. Here from the conclusion of his 139 page decision. (Pages 136-138, bolded portions are my emphasis, with a few comments of my own which are un-indented.)

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

This is one of the saddest and most repulsive aspects of this trial – Christians using deception, a smoke and mirrors game, in order to try to maneuver around the law. I am grateful that the Judge makes special note of this.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.

Proponents of ID wasted no time in calling Judge Jones an activist judge, vilifying him and his decision.

Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

The people of Utah deserve better as well. Hopefully, Sen. Chris Buttars will rethink his legislation against evolution and drop it.

Also, I would like to comment on a couple of additional things in the above blog article by proponents of ID mentioned above.

Luskin pointed out that the ruling only applies to the federal district in which it was handed down. It has no legal effect anywhere else. The decision is also unlikely to be appealed, since the recently elected Dover school board members campaigned on their opposition to the policy. "The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling have been preempted by the voters," he said.

Unfortunately, this will probably be true. So this ruling in the end only makes a good club in which to hit ID folks upside the head with.

"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," continued West. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about.. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."

This may also prove to be true, but ultimately will prove detrimental to Christianity, which proponents of ID won’t like. As interest in intelligent design grows, so will the evidence against it – as more and more of that irreducible complexity is reduced to something explainable. The end result unfortunately being ‘evidence’ proving that the Bible is ‘incorrect’.

Book Discussion: Inherit the Wind

I thought I would mention here for any of my Utah readers that my book discussion group has picked Inherit the Wind to read for the month of February. Inherit the Wind is the classic play by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee that is very loosely based on the 1925 Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’. It’s the epic courtroom drama of creationism vs. evolution. We meet every 3rd Thursday of the month to discuss the book picked. Everyone is welcome to come, just read the book (or watch the movie) and come discuss.

Discussing: Inherit the Wind
We meet at: Cool Beans, 51 E Main St, Lehi
When: 7:00 p.m., Thursday, February 16th, 2006

The culture war’s broader front

The Economist has an article out this week that gives us a bigger picture of which the debate over Intelligent Design is merely the most publicized portion of. It discusses the court battle that some Christian schools are having with the University of California school system over admittance requirements, but puts it into its broader context.

In a lot of ways the Intelligent Design debate is just the tip of the iceberg. The fundamentalists are trying to portray the debate as a student’s right to “freedom of speech and thought” and ‘freedom of choice’ as some commenters on this blog have mentioned. As I see it, and have experienced it, those freedoms are already there. What’s really being sought is evangelism, just another form of proselytizing of their limited and human interpretations of the Bible, and a demand that their views not only be respected, but accepted by others as well (for ‘salvation’).

Besides evolution in biology classes, other subjects are also under threat. It’s only a matter of time before Wallbuilders & Co. will seriously try to revise American history classes into a fundamentalist image. Literature needs to be cleaned up. Government classes as well. And of course stuff like geology is practically satanic. It all starts with just getting your foot in the door, with Intelligent design and ‘teach the controversy’.

Labeled: Theistic Evolutionist

The term ‘theistic evolutionist’ has recently been applied to me by my pastor who is a young earth creationist. But I have to admit I am a little wary of applying this term, or label, ‘theistic evolutionist’ to myself. I mean, in general, I agree with it – I believe in God, and I believe in evolution, therefore I am a ‘theistic evolutionist’ – but the problem I have with it is it is a loaded term. Ted Peters, in a current article in Sojourners Magazine, mentions that the term ‘theistic evolutionist’ is “a phrase actually coined by the creationists as a term of derision” who they “accuse of selling out to the enemy”. Now I honestly don’t know how true that is, but it does give me pause before applying it to myself.

By way of example, I have similar feelings about the term ‘evangelical’, which in many ways has been hijacked by right-wing religious politicos. I currently go to an evangelical church here in Utah, but I can’t apply the label ‘evangelical’ to myself, for it has lost much of its previous meaning and has now come to represent someone who is pro-Republican, pro-Bush, pro-war, and anti-gay anything, someone who has practically sold their soul to the devil in order to end abortion, who demand that doctors keep brain-dead bodies alive, and yet they are pro-death penalty, and of course, creationist. The term ‘evangelical’ today conjures up many of these concepts in people when they hear the word, but none of them really apply to me.

The label ‘theistic evolutionist’ is similar, but unlike the term ‘evangelical’ it is mostly defined by its detractors, not its advocates. Because of this there are few positives to the term. It carries connotations of being a half baked compromiser who can’t make up his mind what he wants to believe. Either he has no real faith, and/or he simply can’t see reality. I disagree, of course.

Anyway, just musing over some terms and how they are used, anyone else with some thoughts?

An interview with Richard Dawkins on Beliefnet

An interesting interview of Richard Dawkins is available on Beliefnet. I took note of a few points he makes. In regards to many Christians understanding of evolution he says:

They need to understand what evolution is about. Many of them don’t. I was truly shocked to be told by two separate religious leaders in this country [the U.S.] a few weeks ago--they both said something to the effect that, “I’ll believe in evolution when I see a tailed monkey give birth to a human.”

That is staggering ignorance of what evolutionary science is about; if they think that’s what evolutionists believe, no wonder they’re skeptical of it. How can a civilized country have adult people in positions of leadership who know so stunningly little about the leading biological concept?

This is half the problem. So many Christians have so little real understanding of what evolution is really all about. They don’t understand it, write it off as ‘false teaching’, denounce it with zeal, and often question the ‘Christianity’ of those Christians who believe in it.

Is atheism the logical extension of believing in evolution?

They clearly can’t be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious. My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.

It’s nice to know that one of the world’s most outspoken atheists can recognize that atheism is not the ‘logical extension’ of evolution. Why can’t so many churchmen recognize the same thing? Evolution doesn’t in itself cause atheism. Many atheists today would be atheists anyway in spite of evolution. Honestly, one of the biggest causes of atheism in folks today is probably the stubbornness of so many churchmen who will not let go of their human interpretations of the Bible, despite mounting evidence that they are wrong.

You talk about how your words have been twisted by religious people in the past. Which words of yours have been twisted?

Whenever I begin an argument by saying something that sounds as though it's creationist, something like "the Cambrian Explosion is a sudden explosion of fossils almost as though they had no history," I'm obviously saying that as a prelude to explaining why.

But these people quote selectively. It's a demonstration of their fundamental dishonesty. They’re not actually interested in truth, they’re interested in propaganda. [italics are mine]

Unfortunately, I have found this to be true in several instances. It is so sad to see Christians stoop to this level. When seen for what it is this kind of deceitful propagandizing has caused many to lose faith in Christ.

Update on that Kansas University class…

They cancelled it. Bummer! Too controversial. I had blogged earlier about the class that KU had announced, Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design and Creationism.

New Duane Jeffery article

Duane Jeffery, BYU professor of zoology, in an article yesterday in The Daily Herald takes a lesson out of the history books to help us get a better picture of the dangerous ground biblical literalists are walking on.

Decades ago it was popular in both science and religion to ponder the merits of something called the "universal ether."

This was supposed to be a marvelous something that filled the entire universe, necessary to carry radiation from the sun to heat the earth, etc.

Numerous religionists asserted that the ether was the method by which God kept in contact with his creations; it was allegedly the medium of the Holy Spirit.

Here in Utah those latter ideas were propounded by both prominent scientists and leading churchmen. Though universal ether is no longer so taught, there is a message here that is directly relevant to our present society.

The intent was not only to relate religious matters to then-current secular concepts but also to use the prestige of science to validate religious doctrine. And that is precisely the intent of the "Intelligent Design" (ID) movement today. So, before we Utahns get overly wrapped up in ID, we'll do well to reflect on some history.

Eventually the concept of universal ether was disproven and discarded. And where did that leave the argument for deity? Compromised, frankly, and the credibility of those who taught the relationship clearly damaged. Employing science to validate one's religious views was shown to be quite unwise. Let's learn from that; isn't that a major reason to study history?

Jeffery recommends a book, The History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, by Andrew Dixon White, available on Amazon.com and online. He summarizes White’s ideas on the conflict of the Bible and science with,

White's thesis was that science and religion did not have to be enemies; it was the arguments of theology and scriptural (mis)interpretation, not scripture or religion themselves, that generated conflict. Multitudinous biblical interpretations fiercely defended in earlier times are laughable today.

We all recognize that science changes and matures; too often we are loathe to recognize that religion evolves also and that our descendants will be bemused by many ideas that presently we consider immutable.

Science and the Bible get along just fine, but science and certain interpretations of the Bible don’t. We Bible believers need to realize that when we perceive a conflict between the Bible and science it is most likely our all too human interpretation that science is in conflict with, not the Bible itself.