Of course, bringing The Principia into the equation can be interesting to the real debate this thread was supposed to promote..

Newton's conclusions, laws and rationale worked for a long time, and if the observable universe were our only reference, still would. However, despite this work being every bit as important to human history as the bible, it has one small difference...

It is OK to refine it, dispute it, debate it or even dismiss it. (I came close in my PhD viva, my subject being mechanical vibration. The look on the face of one prof. made me back track slightly though. Perhaps there is something holy about the rudy thing after all?)

No, really. it is ok. There is nothing revered in it, nothing that Newton, despite his alleged pomposity, would have objected to. In fact, the preface by Halley invites just that.

The upshot being that once it became obvious that the quantum level put physics on a different footing and all bets were off, observable physics became known as Newtonian or classic physics.

Biblical teachings however suggest that only the observable exists, otherwise it would have reference to the building blocks of life rather than jealous gods and brimstone. As nobody who wrote the various bits had seen much further than The Roman Empire, that tends to make it at best an unreliable witness. Where is the information on quarks? Why do we have to name Higgs Boson after two c20 scientists if the bible could have come up with a name for it? After all, it is the one thing that could even begin to make Genesis any more than fantasy?