You have it backwards: Mr. Thomas correctly points out the “misrepresentations” of the Darwinists and their apologists. Nevertheless, I look forward to your efforts at “mental gymnastics” on this matter.
Not at all.
DWW1990: " Mr. Thomas correctly points out the 'misrepresentation' of the Darwinists and their apologists."
I'm not here to defend atheists who make "Darwinism" their religion.
I am here to say they don't represent science itself, properly understood.
Indeed, I note your author is more than happy to accept such atheism as the very definition of science and so turn any possible debate from "science vs. religion" to "one religion (atheism) vs. another (Christianity)".
Then, if we accept that science is just another religion, it can be rejected on religious grounds, end of discussion.
But it's not, of course.
Despite what some atheists may say about science, traditional "natural science" is the opposite of religion in that it has nothing to do with terms like, "truth", "belief", "faith" or "wisdom".
At its core, science is only concerned with two things: observations and natural hypotheses attempting to explain them.
When an observation can be confirmed, science calls it a "fact" and if a hypothesis gets strongly confirmed, it's called a "theory".
None of this has anything to do with belief or faith, since observations are sometimes in error, hypotheses are frequently falsified and even confirmed theories are sometimes overturned when new data or better explanations come along.
So any acceptance of scientific "facts" or "theories" is conditional -- until better data or explanations can be found.
That's why I'll repeat: in science there is no truth, no belief, no faith and no wisdom, because strictly defined, those are not what science is all about.
And those who tell us otherwise are just hoping to pull the wool over our eyes, so to speak.
Instead, science is, and only ever can be, a rough model of reality as we can perceive it.
It's like a model ship, for example, impossible to make 100% accurate, and even if it were, hypothetically, it's still just a model, not the real thing, not "true".
And sure, science can be useful & helpful, but that still doesn't make it "wisdom" in the Biblical sense (gnosis).
Yes, some atheists in effect make science their religion, but historically and even today, many scientists have been clergy or strong believers in the Bible.
So, it's not necessary to be an atheist to like science, even so-called "historical sciences."
So, does science contradict the Bible?
Well, that depends on how you look at it.
If you consider science as just another religion at war against yours, then obviously it does.
But that was never the original intent of natural-sciences.
Instead, the intention was simply to explain in natural terms how God made what we see and detect.
Indeed, that methodological assumption of naturalism is what makes science uniquely different from any religion.
So while you and I are free to assign whatever divine interventions we wish to nature, science itself is forbidden by definition from going there.
If the only explanation is "divine intervention", then science itself can say nothing about it.
Instead, science will look for whatever natural explanations, however weak or even silly they may be, because that's all science, as science, can do.
Finally, you need to consider very carefully the following question: why did God not give Albert Einstein the Ten Commandments and tell Moses "E=MC2"?
The answer is obvious: because "E=MC2" would have done Moses no good whatever and without the Ten Commandments for Moses, Einstein would most likely never have been born.
Point is: God tells us what we really need to know, when we need to know it.
That's why the Bible says nothing about modern science.
But there are some amazing hints in the Bible, imho.
For example, "Let there be light" sounds to me like what God might tell an ancient shepherd about the Big Bang theory.
Psalms & other books tell us that God "stretches the heavens" which is just what science discovered in the last century.
Genesis also tells us that God began with dirt to make man, which sounds to me like evolution theory reduced to its most basic.
And we could go on -- a day for God is not just a thousand years for us, but a thousand years could also be just "a watch in the night", maybe four hours for God, meaning time itself is indeterminate, perhaps irrelevant to God.
Consider Noah:
But none of that changes the basic fact that the Bible does not deal in any way with natural causes & effects, while science, by definition, does not deal in any way with Divine Creation or Interventions (miracles).
So any link between natural and divine must happen within the minds of believers.
I'm only saying one does not necessarily exclude the other.
You disagree?