What do we know?

In my last post in the Perspectives on an Evolving Creation series, I wrote, "We must beware the dangers of thinking our interpretations of Scripture are as infallible as the Scriptures themselves. We must similarly beware the dangers of ever imagining our science expresses a definitive understanding of nature."

As I wrote that second sentence, I was reminded of something I have wanted to blog for many weeks--about a frustration I experienced while reading Glover's book, Beyond the Firmament. Page 30.

I was out of town at the time I wrote that post, so I couldn't get a-hold of Glover's book to quote it. But now that I'm back, I have access.

So.

On page 30 Glover writes,

[E]very astronomer knows that stars are formed when clouds of interstellar dust and gas, mostly hydrogen, fall in on themselves under the influence of gravity, and the intense pressure and heat ignites the nuclear furnace that fuses the hydrogen into helium and releases tremendous amounts of energy.

Some of the details are still a little sketchy, but no supernatural explanation is necessary for that. . . .

When I read these statements by Glover, I thought: "Whoa! Hold on, Glover! 'Every astronomer knows? How well does he or she know? Do you really think your 'known' explanation for the formation of stars is going to remain intact for another hundred years? The relatively few sketchy details you think there are: Are you sure they aren't actually many details . . . and perhaps more sketchy than you realize?"

--Just thought I should comment.

There is plenty of need for humility on all sides.