As a pragmatic question of interpretation, creation generally has been assumed to be a testament of God, coming from His hand directly.  (Indeed, that is one of the foundations of the authority of science as promoted by the church.) In that view, where scripture disagrees with nature, nature should probably be given the leeway, don’t you think?  Unless we promote the Bible to a position of authority over God, we have no other choice.

Were we to choose to say scripture is literally correct and our understanding of science merely inadequate, shouldn’t we be demanding that the meteorologists find the storehouses where God laid up the hailstones, as God told Job?

If the Bible is correct in all that it affirms, then it is correct in what it affirms about nature. If it is correct in what it affirms about nature, and if the current conclusions of science disagree with what it affirms, then by the Law of Noncontradiction, those current conclusions cannot be correct.

It seems to me that is a relatively arbitrary claim, that the Bible is correct in nature — science — claims.  Nothing in scripture can be fairly interpreted to suggest the Bible was ever intended to be used in such a fashion, and it seems to me that the story of Jesus’s temptation from the top of the Temple is a fair warning that we should not interpret the Bible as authoritative over nature.

As a pragmatic question of interpretation, creation generally has been assumed to be a testament of God, coming from His hand directly.  (Indeed, that is one of the foundations of the authority of science as promoted by the church.) In that view, where scripture disagrees with nature, nature should probably be given the leeway, don’t you think?  Unless we promote the Bible to a position of authority over God, we have no other choice.

Were we to choose to say scripture is literally correct and our understanding of science merely inadequate, shouldn’t we be demanding that the meteorologists find the storehouses where God laid up the hailstones, as God told Job?  Perhaps we could prevent many crop disasters and dented cars if we could just find those storehouses and clean them out.Logically, of course, isn’t that where Tom’s reading takes us?  Ready to denounce the weather forecast from the pulpit?  I’m not.

“…in times when scientific and Scriptural interpretation clash over nature, one should re-examine the scientific interpretation (as well as the Scriptural one) to see if it is incorrect…modern science already has in place a system for questioning its conclusions and explanations.”

That is precisely the point. Tom is not indicating that one or the other interpretations are automatically wrong. He is indicating that when conflicts appear, the problem is in the interpretations, not reality. Thus, the phrase “as well as the scriptural ones.” This is parenthetically noted in your own quote, but it’s not parenthetical to the argument. It’s central. Our view does not reject all scientific interpretations that disagree with scriptural interpretations – it notes that at least one of the two must be wrong when they seem to disagree.

I think Tom’s also right, though, about this really being an issue of one’s view of scriptures in general. What you are advocating is just the polar opposite of what you claim Tom is. You’re just saying that when scientific interpretations and scriptural interpretations disagree, that’s scripture’s problem. If you’re convinced that scripture cannot speak to reality, then no other arguments make much difference.

Your idea about the commune is interesting, but not helpful for this issue. You’re setting up exactly the kind of hierarchy that Tom (and I, and the article) are not. In your commune, science is completely rejected when it conflicts with a preferred interpretation of beauty, ipso facto. That is not what is being proposed here, and I don’t know how much clearer I can be on that. No one is talking about dismissing a scientific idea only because it conflict with a religious idea. We are saying that reality is reality; both nature and God are real; therefore, any apparent disagreement is the fault of the interpreter – and both sides can be wrong.

Scientific facts are to be judged, ultimately, on their scientific merits. That have to be, actually, so that’s just a tautology. That does not mean that we can’t get some direction from scriptural interpretations when forming scientific interpretations (and vice versa). This is, partly, because “science” is only able to speak to a limited portion of reality, not all of reality.

I believe that the Bible speaks the truth; that it is trustworthy and correct in all that it affirms, because it is the revelation given us by God. I think Medicine Man and SteveK and Charlie would all agree with that statement.

If the Bible is correct in all that it affirms, then it is correct in what it affirms about nature. If it is correct in what it affirms about nature, and if the current conclusions of science disagree with what it affirms, then by the Law of Noncontradiction, those current conclusions cannot be correct.

I have not forgotten the point of this post, which is that we can make mistakes in our interpretation of the Bible, just as we can make scientific mistakes. The two disciplines can help correct each other.

But I think you can probably agree that the question hinges on one’s view of the Bible. If one takes it to teach truly about all it affirms, then one has to take its teachings into account in every area of life, including one’s understanding of nature.

If I didn’t view the Bible this way, then I would agree with you, that science is the only methodology to use for understanding nature.

No, I’d say that a statement about nature that has not undergone the process by which scientific facts are established should not be regarded with equal value to scientific facts. (I hate to have to say this but it’s come up innumerable times with Charlie — I hope that you’re not going to trot out examples of unscientific conclusions made by bad [non] scientists and bureaucrats in the past and portray them as examples of scientific facts that are later disproven. For instance, I hope that you aren’t going to cite Spontaneous Generation as an example of a scientific fact.)

You wrote the following as a summary of my argument: “”Science is the only way that works…”
As I mentioned above I haven’t thought very much about a definition for knowledge. But I would definitely not say that science is the only that we can accurately describe nature. There’s dumb luck, for instance. I would say that the scientific process is the best way currently known to describe nature. 

You wrote the following as a summary of my argument: “and it [science] works because its statements can be tested, there is a route toward its statements’ general acceptance, and it can accomplish us some good.”

You left out how scientific facts about nature can be known, which I would include. That is, empiricism. 
 
With those modifications I think that is a fair summarization of what I would like my answer to be.

I would say that a statement about nature has to be scientific for that knowledge to be scientific.

Can’t disagree with that! The rest of what you said gets into practical questions. I was wondering whether a statement about nature has to be strictly, exclusively scientific to be a knowledge statement, in your opinion. I might summarize your answer this way: there doesn’t seem to be any other way than science to arrive at something that might count as knowledge. Science is the only way that works; and it works because its statements can be tested, there is a route toward its statements’ general acceptance, and it can accomplish us some good.

I could respond in perhaps two ways. One might be to show that those aren’t the only, or the best, tests of what counts as knowledge; another might be to show that another route to knowledge could satisfy those tests. But before I do that (it’s the weekend again, and I don’t want to go long) I’ll let you respond to this so far.

In order for scientific knowledge to be scientific, it can only be tested by science. Testing by religion makes it something else. 

But is that something else non-knowledge? 

Everything else you wrote here, I’m fine with, but I want to stay with this question. Does a statement about nature have to be strictly, exclusively scientific to be a knowledge statement?

I believe I was responding to Charlie’s query that science must form my belief system, and I was trying to say that because scientific knowledge does not demand absolute certainty (unlike an essential religious belief) it could not constitute a belief system. Let’s call it a set of operating principles.

Tom, you wrote: “Science can speak to how we can accomplish what we decide is good, but it cannot speak to what actually is the good to be desired.”

My point was to Charlie’s question, why is it important that an individual (in particular non-scientists) hold a scientific theory to be essentially correct in its view of nature. I didn’t say science gives us an answer for that. I gave my answer. Is the implication that my basic argument disallows me from making any moral or ethical comment on a side question?

You wrote: “How would I accommodate different interpretations of Scripture? I’ll limit my answer to what is relevant to the topic of the original post. Where science appears to contradict our understanding of Scripture, I would take all of my information from both sources and either come to a conclusion or suspend judgment pending further research. 

That was not the question I was trying to ask. My question is how would you accommodate the variety of scriptural interpretations given by the Christian community as a whole, including Catholic, protestant, and Greek Orthodox. In other words, are you claiming that you can achieve agreement as to who and who does not belong in the community of scriptural interpreters, and that there would be no disputes as to the correct interpretation achieved?

Tom, you are making two basic arguments, one is that Scripture is inerrant in its description of nature, and the second is that scientific interpretation cannot be accepted that is not also vetted by its agreement with Scriptural interpretation. This is placing untestable assumptions before testable ones. It turns science from a quest for natural knowledge into a handmaiden of your religious convictions. If allowed to be practiced, it would endanger the good that can be achieved by better understanding nature. In other words, everyone would be better served if your religious conviction guided you with what to do with scientific knowledge, NOT to determine what is scientific knowledge. In order for scientific knowledge to be scientific, it can only be tested by science. Testing by religion makes it something else. 

First, relating to two passages from Tony:

At 4:18 pm on 4 June,

And no, I would not dream of asking you to re-interpret Scripture based on the pronouncements of science. I see no reason why the two (religion and science) should expect that of one another.

On 5 June at 12:32 pm:

One doesn’t “believe” in gravity. (I don’t know anyone who is a “Gravitationist.”) Gravity is.

Here’s my question, Tony. I admit I’m reading into your comments here, but what I’m reading into them is a very common conception, so you can feel free to let me know if I’ve misinterpreted you. I think what you’re saying is that when one “believes in” something religious, such as “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,” that’s something different than knowing something. I can “believe” it, but it’s not the same as “knowing” it. We “know” what we have learned to be true; we “believe” what we have chosen for ourselves.

That view of “belief” and of religion in general makes your first comment quoted here possible. If something in the world makes our religious views untenable, so what? They’re just “beliefs,” anyway; they’re not really something that we know.

If this is your position, you’re hardly alone. A lot of Christians have forgotten that Christianity is a knowledge tradition, based on historical events that actually happened; or, if those events didn’t actually happen, then Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15:12-20).

In other words, Christianity’s claims intersect with claims of history. If history disproved the resurrection, Christians who really understand our faith would be the first in line to cast it aside; for if the resurrection didn’t really happen, our faith is false. And just as the pronouncements of history can have both a real and potential effect on our beliefs, so could the pronouncements of science.

On the other hand, Christians have solid reasons for believing that we have true information in the Bible, as long as it is interpreted correctly. It would take a lot coming from science to show that these reasons are false.

So I return to my starting statement: we have (at least) two good sources for developing our understanding: nature and Scripture. Nature is understood through science, Scripture is understood by the practice of hermeneutics. Science and hermeneutics are both practices toward the development of genuine knowledge.

And on 5 June, at 11:57 am,

You wrote: “I actually do think that the correctness / incorrectness of science should be measured against its agreement with scripture.” Really? How would you accommodate for different interpretations of Scripture? Who decides whose interpretation is correct? How should those of us who are affected by your judgments decide whose Scriptural interpretation is correct? And what means would you use to persuade believers in non-Christian religions that your Scriptural interpretations are more valid than theirs and thus should hold authority?

How would I accommodate different interpretations of Scripture? I’ll limit my answer to what is relevant to the topic of the original post. Where science appears to contradict our understanding of Scripture, I would take all of my information from both sources and either come to a conclusion or suspend judgment pending further research. That’s my position regarding Intelligent Design, by the way. I don’t know if Behe et al. are right in saying that God’s design can be detected empirically in nature. I think they have a pretty good case, but it’s still in process. I’m suspending judgment on that. But I’m not suspending judgment on whether God actually created the natural order. Nothing in science contradicts that, and there’s no reason to call it into question.

And on 6 June, 9:28 am:

But if you’re asking what’s wrong with not accepting established scientific theory, I’d say that what’s wrong is people die needlessly, children remain ignorant, that kind of thing. In other words, I think we should not allow our right to hold personal convictions interfere with our duties to each other as citizens. We live in a civil society, where we need to, among other things, feed each other, combat disease, treat illness, etc. This requires cooperation, and it requires consensus. Failing to accept established scientific facts on religious grounds is bad for society because it undermines the cooperation we need to reduce misery and suffering. 

Charlie rightly pointed out that you’ve moved well beyond science here, into morality, to which science cannot speak. Science can speak to how we can accomplish what we decide is good, but it cannot speak to what actually is the good to be desired.

On 6 June, at 1:55 pm:

I don’t think it’s a subtle argument to say that Tom’s view as stated above allows that there are times when the interpretations of science should be resisted because they disagree with the interpretations of Scripture. I applaud Christians who accept and reject scientific interpretations based on the evidence of science. And I fear for a society that encourages vetting science through a religious as opposed to scientific prism, because such approaches have a less than happy history. (See: The Middle East.)

Let’s agree there are wrong religious beliefs. I’m not supporting “religion.” I’m supporting historic, orthodox, Biblical Christianity. Which I think is true, and if I’m right, where “science” disagrees with it, “science” is wrong. For example: some say that “science” says that God had nothing to do with the creation or development of life. They’re wrong. They’re wrong, because Scripture clearly says so. Not coincidentally, they’re also wrong on scientific/logical grounds, for science cannot make that pronouncement.

I’m sorry if you feel adrift without holding deep convictions about how the world is, but I will confess to you that I do not.

Telling you how mistaken you are since this applies to you as well as to me would have been enough. I’m sorry that I characterized your jibe as hypocritical instead of just wrong.

This is actually one of my favorite new comments. You tell me that I have [unwarranted] resentment and indignities in the same sentence you tell me that you’re not insulting or judging me. You go on to accuse me of hypocrisy two sentences later.

How resentful of me to feel insulted.

Charlie, if I have the energy this weekend I might start trying to break your arguments into smaller compartments. Suffice to say that you continue to mischaracterize my argument and science.

And I fear for a society that encourages vetting science through a religious as opposed to scientific prism, because such approaches have a less than happy history. (See: The Middle East.)

 See Lysenkoism for another less than happy history.

Tom wrote: “Where there is disagreement (between the interpretation of Scripture and science), that ought to tell us we have more work to do: we’re on the wrong track, either in our understanding of nature, or of Scripture or both.”

I don’t think it’s a subtle argument to say that Tom’s view as stated above allows that there are times when the interpretations of science should be resisted because they disagree with the interpretations of Scripture. I applaud Christians who accept and reject scientific interpretations based on the evidence of science. And I fear for a society that encourages vetting science through a religious as opposed to scientific prism, because such approaches have a less than happy history. (See: The Middle East.)
 
Charlie, last thing: just because I said I don’t have deep convictions about how the world is doesn’t mean that I don’t have deep convictions. And speaking for my people, skeptics are insulted when it is assumed that because they don’t have deep convictions about how the world is it can be assumed that they must be devoid of moral convictions or compassion.
 

But I resent my asking for a justification for this approach being automatically characterized as prejudice, when in fact it appears to me that the justification you are providing – that Scriptural interpretation is superior to scientific interpretation because it provides deep convictions – is the one that is prejudicial.

This is an invention. Nobody said scriptural interpretation is superior to scientific interpretation and this is exactly what Tom was addressing in the OP. If there is conflict in the few places the two overlap then one is mistaken. Your belief that the religious interpretation must be wrong is belied by the fact that the scientific interpretation is often wrong. Your worry that a religious person, doubting a scientific theory for religious reasons, is somehow “at odds” with science ignores the fact that people doubt scientific theories all the time for all kinds of reasons – scientists among them, and most vociferously. You keep bringing up evolution (no surprise) but if you look at the history there you will find that Darwin’s greatest adversaries were other scientists, not the religious. This is a convenient culture war stereotype that people have become addicted to creating since the Enlightenment and it is no more historical here. The fact that there is such a thing called theistic evolution ought to show you that just knowing a person is religious is no reason for you to keep assuming he is “at odds” with science on this issue. The fact that you just admitted that ID itself could be adopted with little or no change to the science ought to tell you that even IDers, even those arguing about evolution most vehemently, are not at odds with science and are not a danger to it.
You overstate the case about natural selection being the driving force in evolution. There is, in fact, debate on this issue and many doubt its efficacy at all. Calling these the “sole” mechanisms appears to give them equal weight and as one of the sole mechanisms natural selection is viewed by many as virtually null. From mathematics to empirics it is not seen to be that effective. Variation is king. 
But this site is not one devoted to origins debates. There are lots of such sites. Religion does not equal being at odds with evolution and until scientists make metaphysical claims, as I could make a case for in your use of the word “sole”, or when they do when they say it is a random unguided directionless process that didn’t have us in mind, I have no complaint.

You wrote: “Since scientific knowledge is bound to be contradictory on many points we can’t help but fail to accept at least portions of it.”
What established scientific theory is contradictory on many points? I think you are way overstating your case here.  

What do you believe about the established theory of gravity? There is a world of difference between accepting that it (whatever it is) acts and that its does so with a measurable and predictable regularity and accepting the explanations for it. Denying observable facts, weights and measures, is not the same as doubting interpretations of those observations.

I completely disagree. It is by seeking better explanations, not by rejecting knowledge, that scientists improve our scientific knowledge. Theoreticians haven’t improved our scientific knowledge by rejecting it; they built on it. Einstein, for instance, could not have given us Relativity if he rejected Newtonian physics. 
 

Semantics. Scientists reject the received wisdom, the knowledge of science, say this interpretation can’t be right, and seek ways to show this to be the case. Some say that the knowledge that LUCA must have been a simple organism, or even a single organism is wrong and they seek to demonstrate this with evidence.
And better explanations aren’t always scientific. It is a better explanation of man that he have volition than not, regardless of the scientific knowledge on the subject. It was a better explanation of DNA that it not be overwhelmingly junk. Science is a limited venture with a limited view and a limited scope. Its job is to uncover more and more information as it goes, and as it does it will turn over its own findings and its own tentative (and often reckless) claims.
There is no reason to accept these findings as writ in stone when by their very nature they cannot be.

I could write that because those with religious convictions dispute interpretations of Scripture all the time demonstrates that they do not have to be accepted by anybody and everybody.

And so could I write this. And this is very true. If Scripture is at odds with how you see the world, even without deep convictions, then you have every right not to believe it. To properly not believe it, however, a person should have some basis.

You wrote: “It is religious prejudice to say that the only invalid reason to doubt a finding of science is a religious one, just as it is to say that the only arguments that should be struck form the public sphere are those motivated by religious beliefs.”
 Okay. I didn’t say that, though. I said that objections to science should be based on science.

Objections have to have a nexus and every scientist even, mythologies about objectivism aside, approaches a subject from a point of view. Scientific clams are  not objected to on the basis of what evidence there is but on the basis of what that evidence says. And scientists are not not the only ones with valid points of view from which to evaluate evidence. Regardless of the data, eugenics is wrong and being at odds with it is correct, even if you do so for religious reasons.

By wrong I mean incorrect. I don’t believe I need a conviction about how the world is to say that, in the past, people with religious convictions have opposed the findings of science, findings of science that we today accept to be accurate descriptions of nature. Why is that a moral question?

It’s not. You are skipping the part that was a moral question. I already agreed that religious people, for religious reasons, rejected scientific claims and were mistaken in the facts when they did so. 
Whether or not the ought to have rejected these is not an empirical question but a moral one.
I disagree with this next (your first) paragraph in many ways:

But if you’re asking what’s wrong with not accepting established scientific theory, I’d say that what’s wrong is people die needlessly, children remain ignorant, that kind of thing.

Scientific knowledge is only focused ignorance. We will always be ignorant of things and having a “knowledge” about one thing is to be ignorant about another. Many good ideas are rejected in science because they are in conflict with what is already “known”. Science rejects ideas, as it did Duchesne’s on antibiotics, for all kinds of reasons and delays knowledge for decades – if not in perpetuity. How many diseases have not been cured by looking at so much DNA as junk instead of worthy of study? 
“The chief lesson of the history of science is that it is not ignorance that menaces scientific advancement, but rather the illusion of knowledge” Daniel Boorstin, via Vox Day.
And people die needlessly because we do accept scientific findings. They are sterilized, lobotomized and segregated as well.

 In other words, I think we should not allow our right to hold personal convictions interfere with our duties to each other as citizens.

Science dictates no such duty. What about when science interferes with this duty?

We live in a civil society, where we need to, among other things, feed each other, combat disease, treat illness, etc. This requires cooperation, and it requires consensus.

This deeply held belief is not scientific. The need to do these things is a moral finding, not a scientific one.

Failing to accept established scientific facts on religious grounds is bad for society because it undermines the cooperation we need to reduce misery and suffering.

This is your claim, your prejudice, and the case you have not made. Cooperation and the reduction of misery and suffering are hallmarks of religion and science is religion’s handmaiden in achieving these goals. When science is at odds with these religious goals it ought to be rejected for these religious reasons. The theory of evolution, relativity, QM, etc. have nothing to do with attaining these goals, NCSE pronouncements to the contrary notwithstanding.
And consensus is the anti-thesis to science itself.
 
Once again, the point of the OP is that nature and Scripture are both truthful revelations from God. Apparent conflicts are misinterpretations of one or the other. They can not rightly contradict. The fact that you don’t believe in the truth of Christianity is not sufficient reason to suggest that those of us who do need to write blank cheques for every pronouncement uttered by somebody claiming to represent science. Neither you nor anybody else does and to prejudice the expression of doubt against only the religious is just that – prejudice.