Arjay,
What a bunch of nonsense. This shows who is really full of ignorant superstitious beliefs and who's not. It's a myth that people did not believe that the world was round until the men of science revealed it. It's a myth the Pope would've put anyone to death who said the world was not flat. Look, Augustine, having made an unsatisfactory attempt at a literal six days of creation, argued for an allegorical interpretation. Mind you this is in the 4th century. And Augustine is not a nobody - Roman Catholics and Protestants would hold that he's the greatest of the Church Fathers. The Eastern Orthodox would demur of course. You've uncritically and gullibly fallen for a bunch of post-Enlightenment propaganda, and what's worse you continue to propagate it as truth, something no one's who's honest would continue to do. Read your history.

And why, please inform us, must God reveal to the details of the physical laws he created, when He values human souls so much more than anything else He created. The Bible is just the kind of book God would write if what it tells us is true. Like Pascal said, the Christian faith teaches primarily two truths: the corruption of nature, and its redemption by Jesus Christ.

"Surely to know god is to know the his laws which govern and define our universe." What a distorted view of God! How tragic. Is this how you think of people? That to know them is for them to have given you intimate detail on the deck they just built, or the flower bed they just planted. God created man to know him intimately, personally. That involves so much more than knowing how fast he made rocks fall.

"If our religions do not grow with the discoveries of science,how can they or their concept of any deity be revelant?" Religion do grow the discoveries of science. But they grow in their knowledge of God's works. We know so much more from what he's told us about himself which we couldn't have learned from his works.
alyosha

A good book to enlighten those who have fallen for some of the myths of Modernity: "Six Modern Myths", by Philip Sampson. Just about anyone, even Christians (or especially Christians) will find some distortions that they've accepted uncritically as truth.

Yar! Ye be heedin my warnin's about ignorin falsibility in evolutionary theory, ghargh! How ye be explainin dinosaur fossils if ye be believin the world with it's seven seas be only 6000 years old!

(It's International Talk Like A Pirate day, scallywags.)

Twas nary a year ago twen I tw..found that ol' fossil! Me and my dirty murderous crew o' looters and killers were burying our treasure when we found a fossil that nary could be explained by any yonder theory but evolu'ion!

So fair ye be warned. Leave yonder faith out of ye science class, ye dirty dogs, lest you be keelhauled and thrown to t'e sharks! For today be a day of celebration, garh. Drink ye ale and 'ave ye fill of bread.

That danger of Darwinism is not that it undermines a material account of creation as is supposedly given in the creation stories, but that it interprets humanity in terms of the animals. This attitude occasionally peeks through when, for example evolutionary scientists explain rape as a biological imperative.

The offensive between science and theology went this way. Philosophers made the case that we cannot talk about God because God is transcendent to us and cannot be known. The theological response was to acceded to this and posit God in the piety of the individual. Thus God was talked about only in terms of man’s religious experience. This proved to be a disastrous retreat especially with the emergence of evolution which made man into an evolved animal and his religious notions with it. The result is that our major universities do not have departments that deal with theology.

This whole process was aided by natural science taking the role of sole arbiter of truth via the empirical method and the insistence of the secularizers that “spiritual” meant “spooky” or “otherworldly” instead of its biblical denotation as belonging to the psyche of men. While the spiritual relies on the material it is not possible to arrive at the former from the latter. We cannot explain thoughts in terms of neuroscience although we can now observe that certain parts of the brain become active when particular types of thought are entertained.

My position is that we can still talk about the spiritual, as do the disciplines of literature, philosophy etc and that this is a respectable academic pursuit. However we cannot recover the language of the spiritual unless we recognise the mistakes we have made along the way that hedge such a conversation around with mistaken claims.

It is impossible to maintain an intelligent debate, to establish any common platform for it, with someone who is so cluess, so ignorant, of the observed evolutionary process as to state that:
"The danger of Darwinism is --- that it interprets humanity in terms of animals ---." "--- the emergence of evolution which made man into an evolved animal ---."
And there is no hope for humanity if we were all to believe that man is separate from, not just a component of, the changing ecological entity of the world's biosphere.

Gee I've stirred a hornet's nest here.Alyosha"What a load of nonsense!" Collinsett"The danger of Darwinism."
Darwinism is a danger to no one.It is a serious scientific theory based on years or research.Nothing in science becomes law unless it is proven fact with no exceptions to the rule.Using scientific analysis in a court of law,no one would be convicted of any crime.The weight of data,fossil records,diversity in genetic outcomes to cope with environmental changes,makes the theory of evoultion guilty until proven innocent.

We evolved from the apes.Our DNA is only 2% in varience from the Chimpanzee.These are hard scientific facts that no one can deny.I'm agnostic and I say the traditional religions have to do a lot better to convince me and many others of this intelligent design.God must do better to reach the consciousness of our modern educated society.