so, not really a reply to anyone specifically, but on the topic of religion trying to use scientific findings to prove their truth:
Isn't this a little short sighted of the religious community? I mean, yes, scientific "fact" is becoming more refined as time goes on, and some things, at this point, it is fair to say will not be overturned by evidence, or at least, would require such revision in how we understand things that it is more likely that we actually have a valid model (not that we necessarily understand the exact mechanism, but this is getting really phil o sci) than that we are shooting in the dark. However, all of this must be qualified with the caveat that scientific fact is constantly changing.
So, lets even suggest that the Quran says the universe is expanding, in no uncertain terms. This is only evidenced by science so long as the empirical evidence suggests that the universe is expanding. Just because that is what we see now with observation (and, given the predictions that have come from it, it is highly unlikely that it is entirely incorrect) does not mean that it will always be scientific fact.
Like, the whole Galileo issue is almost exactly the same as this. Religions offer a different type of truth than science, and for that reason, imho, actually devalue themselves when they take a stand on empirical matters, largely because a) it can undermine the authority of their other dogma when the science changes and b) religious people are not really trained to have an intuitive understanding of empirical causality or the scientific method.
One of the recent Popes said something like "We shouldn't fear the results of science, for any inconsistencies between dogma and science are simply what is yet to be discovered". I don't believe a word of it, but that seems like a much more intellectually tenable position than trying to rework dogma and science to be complimentary.