religion needs to be constantly reinterpreted to maintain even logical consistency with our empirically-based secular knowledge. This process in itself leaves religious beliefs looking ad hoc and implausible.
But, wait a minute, doesn’t science constantly reinterpret itself to maintain consistency with empirically-based knowledge?
So, is the complaint that those forms of theism that try to reconcile empirical knowledge and religious faith are being too damn much like science?
Seriously, if you aren’t reading John Pieret, you’re missing out on some good snarking.
On a more serious note, I’d again urge people to think about the importance of self-certainty as a defining trait of the dangerous sorts of theology. Folks like Answers in Genesis think that “sinful, fallible human beings in a sin-cursed universe” can interpret the Bible with perfect consistency, but that “fallible assumptions and fallen reasoning” cannot possibly reveal a consistent understanding of the natural world. Moderate theists recognize that human fallibility would apply to both our ability to reliably interpret empirical data and our ability to interpret the written word, and so approach both with the sort of humility and willingness to question and revise that scientists have to bring to their work in the lab and the scientific literature every day. I know why Ken Ham objects to moderate theists doing this, but I don’t know why Russell Blackford would object.