[betty boop]

You don't have to be precisely a young-earth creationist, or precisely in the theistic evolution category, or precisely in the naturalistic evolution category. And a lot of us aren't.

A lot of us don't START with a doctrine (i.e., a rationalist structure).

I think Francis Bacons' approach is entirely appropriate for science — provided we respect the fact (as Bacon did) that the scientific method is not appropriate for all phenomena, but only empirical ones; and thus God in particular cannot be an object for science in principle.

Putting it crudely, Bacon thought that God is not "threatened" by science in any way; for it couldn't touch Him in the first place.

[john in springfield]

Some people do, of course, fail to respect that the scientific method is not appropriate for all phenomena. And others (on the other end) seem to think that God is threatened by science.

Personally, I simply have never been able to conceive of God being threatened by truth. Of course, if you really take this position, then you have to be prepared for the real possibility that your understanding of certain things will change.

[Alamo-Girl]

I think Francis Bacons' approach is entirely appropriate for science — provided we respect the fact (as Bacon did) that the scientific method is not appropriate for all phenomena, but only empirical ones; and thus God in particular cannot be an object for science in principle.

Putting it crudely, Bacon thought that God is not "threatened" by science in any way; for it couldn't touch Him in the first place.

Indeed. Excellent insights! Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ!