…As therefore, the Holy Scriptures in many places not only admit but actually require a different explanation for what seems to be the literal one, it seems to me that they ought to be reserved for the last place in mathematical discussions.  For they, like nature, owe their origin to the Divine Word; the former is inspired by the Holy Spirit, the latter as the fulfillment of the Divine commands; it was necessary, however in Holy Scripture, in order to accomodate itself to the understanding of the majority, to say many things which apparently differ from the precise meaning.  Nature, on the contrary, is inexorable and unchangeable, and cares not whether her hidden causes and modes of working are intelligible to the human understanding or not, and never deviates on that account from her prescribed laws.  It appears to me therefore that no effect of nature, which experience places before our eyes, or is the necessary conclusion derived from evidence, should be rendered doubtful by passages of Scripture which contain thousands of words admitting of various interpretations, for every sentence of Scripture is not bound by such rigid laws as is every effect of nature…. [Source]

Over the past two years, it seems Scripture is being used to determine whether climate science is adequate in Congress. We shared this testimony with you a while back, which has resurfaced because Shimkus had become a favorite for leadership in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But it’s going to a more moderate Republican. Hopefully, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) and the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hear the words of Galileo.