In focusing on the minutiae of historical language and translation one fears, however, that he has significantly failed to grasp the fundamentals of John Keenan’s article and so himself presents a vacuous and flawed logic, despite an obvious grasp of language.
If the Christians’ religion believes that there is a primary “Originator” they call God, they must also believe that all physical phenomena emanate therefrom.
In so doing they must believe that such an Originator is “omniscient”.
All the marvellous intricacies of our world, and therefore our understanding of them (“science”), are to Christians seen as part and parcel of the whole.
To make any distinction between science and religion is therefore not only unreasonable but illogical.
One is a developing understanding of the other.
I suspect that is what Keenan was driving at.