First we must identify with some precision what we mean when we talk about "Science". We shall find that popular notions of Science vary widely. For example, Webster's 1828 Dictionary says that Science is, 1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect. 2. Pure science, as mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation...

Bugger me! That's an eye-opener and what a way to open: Webster's 1828 dictionary was, at the time already 172 years and countless revisions out of date. A dictionary that just happened to be published when Charles Darwin was still at the tender age of 19. His defining text, "The Origin of Species" did not appear until 1859: that's over 30 years after the Webster's article. This was at a time, remember, that religion was very much a part of everyday life, with Darwin really sticking his neck out. What might be considered a less biased quote can be found at Dictionary.com where this definition appears from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (published in 2000).

Dictionary.com defines science thus: a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. Methodological activity, discipline, or study. An activity that appears to require study and method. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience. Science Christian Science.

What is clear is the complete disassociation of God from all except the cross-reference to Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy's quasi-Christian offshoot. But Mr Layfield is on a roll by now, and continues analysing the 1828 Websters dictionary:

This latter definition may at first glance seem acceptable enough. It duly acknowledges the limited scope of scientific enquiry to "the physical world" in its present "structure and behaviour". But, unlike the previous one, notice that there is no reference to God, truth in general or metaphysics. Implicit in the first, yet strangely absent from this second absent definition, is the acknowledgement that there must exist some general framework of thinking to make proper sense of sensory empirical data. Hence, the possibility of Scripture providing this normative role is explicitly denied.

Cor blimey governor - I hope you don't have to submit that to the Plain English Campaign because I rather doubt they would pass it. In any case how is a philosophical argument like god relevant to modern science. I accept that you're too blinkered, or too stupid, to accept reasoned, scientific argument like Darwin's and his successors, but surely you must realise as an experienced user of English that it too, has evolved. These definitions are both arcane and outdated. Funny that - the same critique could be levelled at the King James Bible, couldn't it?

However, if, as Jesus clearly taught, the Bible really is the Word of God - and the internal evidence is overwhelming - true Science will always agree with it. The form of knowledge to which it tends will be trustworthy and true. The ultimate absurdity of abandoning the Biblical framework of knowledge is the introduction of doubt into the universality of any scientific law.

Read this bit again: "the Bible really is the Word of God - and the internal evidence is overwhelming - true Science will always agree with it." Which internal evidence were you alluding to Mr Layfied? Obviously, I'm a heretic so I can't get my head around the bit that says Adam lived 930-ish years or the parts that clearly imply a flat Earth or even the bits that say god created the world in six days; your mate Nigel McQuoid went on record as saying he didn't know how long your god took to make the Earth. In fact, it's full of so much self-contradiction I don't know which bits to believe.

Oh wait, about Adam, God intervened didn't he - in Genesis 6:3 and shortened everyone's life to under 120 years. Yeah, that makes perfect sense; especially since the oldest person ever recorded (and verified) in recent times is one Jeanne-Louise Calment who made 122 years 164 days. Hey, it's only 894 days - but what's that between deities? Blast - there goes another one of your proofs then. Look, maybe the devil reanimated her for that time just to get on your nerves!

...today, schools, universities and TV documentaries present 'natural History' and 'natural Science'. When examined at a fundamental philosophical level, it emerges that the following assumptions have been subtly added to or implied in most contemporary notions of Science: all that exists is hard matter (atoms and molecules) only 'natural physical processes' can be invoked as causes of all effects. However well-intentioned the contemporary scientific fraternity in pursuing with such rigour 'natural science', it must be apparent that what we are left with is in fact 'methodological atheism' - an approach to Science which, by definition, precludes any mention of God or supernatural activity whatsoever.

Er, yes, Mr Layfield. That's the whole point. The more we look into things and the greater our understanding of our natural world, the better equipped we become to understand it; the notion of the supernatural may be well-intentioned but it really serves no useful purpose other than to provide a psychological crutch for those that need one. The only cohesive argument linking almost all religions on Earth is the threat of an incalculable dread in some afterlife. Remove that and all faith becomes little more than a quaint ideology.

What do you fear more, Mr Layfield? God or death. Are you really so sure that your god exists that you're totally happy with the idea of wasting away until your body finally wears out? Or perhaps being hit by a passing bus and left to rot in a persistent vegetative state; perhaps just incapable of communication yet fully self-aware, despite being unable to control even your most basic functions. Kept alive simply because your relatives don't want to send you into the arms of the god you hold so dear. Perhaps they're not so sure that there is a god after all and are clinging to your shell in the vain hope that one day you'll recover from your slumber savaged by time and no longer capable of even rudimentary conversation. Again, what do you really fear most, Mr Layfield: God or death?

To Part 2

6