Newton was a follower of Jesus, the Prophet, and not the Church. Look at the extent of his research:
"By far the most systematic theological research undertaken by Newton concerned the field of prophecy, in which he wrote over 2 million words (which still survive). He wrote in one place that he had been chosen by God to offer an explanation of these texts to his contemporaries, though any plans in this direction were presumably thwarted by their radical nature. In other areas he analysed the character of the fourth century Roman Catholics whom he believed had worked on behalf of the devil and had perverted the Christian religion. He carried out a great deal of research on the nature of Christ's relationship to his father, and also wrote a lengthy Analysis of dimensions of Solomon's Temple, an attempt to ascertain the true dimensions of the temple based on the description given in Ezekiel chs 40-8. In the last three decades of his life he spent vast amounts of time attempting to give a true chronology of events preceding Christ, much of which depended on his redating of the voyage of the Argonauts to 936bce. On at least one occasion, he gave a sermon on his favourite subject, idolatry."
"http://www.enlighteningscience.sussex.ac.uk/learning_objects/student/science_and_religion/isaac_newton_on_religion"

In the closing para to his point [1] Origin of the universe, Batten writes: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). This is not magic, because God, who is eternal and omnipotent, is a sufficient cause for the universe. And He can exist eternally (and therefore has no beginning) because He is a non-material entity (God is spirit, as the Bible says in many places). In the most generous of interpretations one might observe that Batten is declaring that his arbitrary version of the supernatural trumps magic. It is inescapable though that he is railing against a magic straw-man in order to erect a supernatural one in its place.
He has a legitimate eternal and omnipotent agency of creation because his holy book says so, but science’s “magical” agency is illegitimate because he says so. And who would know better than he who branded it magical? The very devices he uses to rail against science “magic” he uses to legitimize his god.
Batten expects to gain credibility by resort to “sufficient cause” and a contrived use of the eternal, of non-materiality and spirit, by conflating the scientific method with drawing a rabbit from a hat. So one must wonder how he reconciles his high erudition in the agricultural sciences with such hare-brained notions. Before proceeding to further criticism it might profit us to ask for an explanation.

Banjo,
Wikipedia? It may have a place, but complex issues are not its forte.

If I was offered two texts unseen, one taken from Wikipedia, and one from the Bible, I think I'd know in which I would have more confidence. Only one has earned the reputation of containing 'gospel' truth.

grateful, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 10:46:19 PM.

While I appreciate the short bio of Newton as a religious believer, not one whit of my post has suffered your attention and emerged bowed and beaten. I repeat, in Newton's day everyone was a believer at least on the surface. Religion held power of life and death over society and a highly suggestive and superstitious population lived in real fear of provoking divine wrath.
Credibility is not enhanced by advising us that during the middle ages great minds gave allegiance to the christian god. Such assertion has around the same impact as your advising that water is wet and that the pope is catholic.

Possibly the three persons responsible for the greatest scientific discoveries were Newton, Darwin and Einstein. Newton lived in a time when one could not safely be an atheist. However, he did deny key Christian beliefs such as the Trinity. Darwin lost religious belief apparently completely but did not want to hurt his religious wife. Einstein did not believe in a personal God. I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god.

Not wanting to be burned at the stake or even rejected by society most people who realize that God like Zeus, the tooth fairy or Santa Claus is a human invention will be silent. At this time in this society one generally does not have to be silent unless one is a politician or clergy.

Rhian,
Thanks for the article. Though a Pope's speech will naturally attract media attention, one man alone cannot represent all of the positions within the Catholic Church, which are quite varied. There are Catholic theologians who see the obvious difficulties with Darwin and evolution.

If atheists want to criticise creationists for the findings, this would be welcome if criticism is given with substantial argument. And the same could be said for believers coming from a certain angle who wish to criticise creationists for their theological positions. From your comments, you seem to have shown yourself to be a church goer. I can appreciate that understandings may differ amongst believers. But when you accuse Don Batten of "torturing theology", don't you think that is rather strong language? What is it that you find so twisted?

I said in my last post that creationists hold similar traditional views on God the Designer to those of the great founders of Western science, (Newton, Kepler, Boyd, Priestly, Faraday, etc.,) those whom you also hold in esteem. These men were not simply nominal in their faith. They had a deep respect and affection for the Scriptures. Johannes Kepler, the discoverer of the laws of planetary motion said, his scientific thoughts were “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” And so, as believers, our understanding of the world is informed by the propositional truths revealed of scripture. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them," might be a good place to begin theologically. As it says in the Creeds, which are a summary of the faith, 'We believe in the Father, maker of heaven and earth ... '

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine, but it would be helpful to say why you disagree. But you've done more than just disagree. You've declared the creationist understanding of theology to be 'tortured'. Such strong words require an explanation.