science v. theology...?

Now here's a surprise...I'm sharing another thought from my beloved Stott (emphasis mine).

Nature and Scripture are both divine revelation ('general and special', 'natural and supernatural', to use the traditional terms), since God has revealed himself both in the world he has made and in Christ and the biblical witness to Christ.

Science is the fallible human interpretation of nature, while theology (or 'tradition', which is theological reflection) is the fallible human interpretation of Scripture.

You and I believe (I think) that in nature and Scripture there are certain given things, *data*...which, if they truly come from God, cannot contradict one another.

The contradictions have not been between nature and Scripture, but between science and theology, that is, between different human interpretations of God's double revelation.

If, therefore, we are to learn lessons from the past, it is neither for conservatives to deny the evidence of nature, nor for liberals to deny the evidence of Scripture, but for all of us to re-examine our interpretations of both.

--From "Essentials", by David L. Edwards and John Stott (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1988), p. 335.

I think what I love about Stott is his gentle manner in bringing out different sides of an issue, acknowledging them all, and dealing with each in equal measures of tact. At the end of the day, it may be clear which side of the fence he falls on in any given debate, but the other side would be hard pressed to feel offended by Stott's approach to the contest.