Davidf,
When I wrote of Christianity and science not being in opposition, I always intended Christianity to mean ‘Bible believing’, as the Bible is central to the faith. I am happy to let my comment stand with or without that addition.

It doesn’t change that there are many thousands of practicing scientists who accept the teaching of the Bible. E.g. Tinman brought up the moon landings. Few realise that Nasa’s primary rocket scientist, Werner Von Braun, was a six day creationist. When I point out that the country that won the space race, the most technologically advanced nation the world has ever known, is also the most openly Christian, I wait for the howls of protest claiming ‘wild co-incidence’.

You mention positively the Reformation. This was nothing if not a Christian movement, with the teaching of Scripture as its highest priority.

You reveal that Isaac Newton openly questioned the doctrine of the trinity. But you don’t find anywhere the great physicist questioning six-day creation.

In Copernicus’ day, the church was entangled in Greek philosophy (Ptolemy) which taught that all planets revolved around the earth. Copernicus and Galileo, both Bible believers, were about to liberate the church from this error.

Tinman,
I’m curious, did you get your name from the Levison, Dreyfuss, DeVito, Hershey movie?

AJ,
Regarding the printing press, what I was suggesting was that Christian thinking helped kick start or inspire scientific enquiry (as George has supported) and the printing press helped spread Christian thinking during the Reformation (as Davidf has supported). If you want, I could find more quotes from historians backing up the contention of Whitehead (in George’s post), and continuing on into the Reformation. With this information, you will be able to make changes to the Wikipedia, if you are so inclined.

AJ,
We are still struggling for words and definitions which will aid meaningful discussion. I tried pointing you to Davidf’s definitions of the word ‘fundamentalist’. Could you explain what you mean by ‘scientific fundamentalism’?

You keep talking about ‘your point’ and how it has been supported and proven. With all your words, I still can’t work out what your point is (other than that you don’t think creationists make good scientists.)

Another phrase of yours was not clear, “The study of evolution has lead to many discoveries”. Compare that to this phrase, by analogy, “The early explorers’ search for Australia’s inland sea lead to the discovery of gold reefs”. The implication here is that these lucky explorers were quite lost or at least misinformed.

You said I couldn’t give any examples of your lack of logic. Of course not. It is, by definition, impossible to give an example of an absence of something.

When I said ‘codswollop’ to Davidf’s assertion that ‘biology rests on evolution’, I thought it deserved such one word rhetoric because he didn’t even try to back up this assertion with anything. At least I backed up my rebuke with the names of two great scientists who contended with his assertion. But I don’t see you taking him to task. (In a later post, he did say that this was scientific consensus. And it largely is, except amongst those scientists who disagree.)

You suggest I should try ‘try proving creationism’. You either think I am more capable than you’re otherwise making out or you have a strange definition of the word ‘proof’, if you think I or anyone else could prove any one explanation for the origins of the world in 350 words.

Anyway, my main position so far has been, and George recently alluded to this in his post, that it is impossible to prove or test a theory of history, as history cannot be replicated. Since evolution (as well as creation) is an historical explanation of how we all got here, it has not and cannot be proven.

Dan wrote:

"It doesn’t change that there are many thousands of practicing scientists who accept the teaching of the Bible. E.g. Tinman brought up the moon landings. Few realise that Nasa’s primary rocket scientist, Werner Von Braun, was a six day creationist."

The fact that Von Braun was a six day creationist simply means that was ignorant outside of his area of expertise. Dear old Werner was a monster. He was a Nazi who employed slave labor at Peenemunde. He was one of Hitler's boys who accepted the Nazi genocide which was an expression of applied Christianity. The centuries of Jew hatred promoted by Christianity made fertile ground for the Holocaust.

David Fisher

The beginning of the Dark Ages in western Europe was the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity was the destroyer of the spirit of enquiry in the classical world. Charles Freeman in "The Closing of the Western Mind" tells the story.

It was only when thinkers started to question the blinders put on them by Christianity that we could move into the modern era.

Intelligent men can have all sorts of primitive beliefs and superstitions. One of those superstitions is a belief in the inerrancy of scripture.

George,

<<You cannot conduct laboratory experiments of the kind “what happens if I change parameters...>>

Sometimes we can. We can change the breathing air of rats and observe what happens to them.

But all your point, about the 'matter of opinion' does, is weaken Dan's point, as his relies solely on his “orderly creator” premise. I have given other examples to demonstrate my point.

Dan,

<<Copernicus and Galileo, ... were about to liberate the church from this error.>>

Yes, and Christian Evolutionists today, are trying to liberate the church from their 'Creationist' error. But the fundamentalists are trying to keep a lid on it, just as the church authority was back then – hence my point.

Again, the more you post, the more angles you give me to approach my argument.

<<Regarding the printing press, what I was suggesting was that Christian thinking helped kick start or inspire scientific enquiry...>>

Yes, as I admitted to George, it may very well have. But that doesn't mean that religion isn't often a hindrance to science and scientific curiosity. I've already given other examples of this but you never addressed them.

<<We are still struggling for words and definitions which will aid meaningful discussion.>>

You're the only one struggling for definitions, Dan. Just because you're losing this debate every step of the way, it doesn't mean this isn't a meaningful discussion.

Why can't we use dictionary definitions? After all, we are largely talking about the physical proof of Creationism and evolution. You've avoided using God as proof of Creationism because you know it would prove my point about fundamentalism.

I'm mostly disputing creationism, not God.

<<Could you explain what you mean by ‘scientific fundamentalism’?>>

How about you re-read all my posts on this thread then?

Put simply: “Creationism” (you haven't even checked the links I provided, have you?). Put it this way...

Normal Scientists:
"Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?"

Creationist Scientists:
"Here’s our conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?"

But before you claim that Evolutionists fit the latter description, please provide some examples.

Continued...

...Continued

Some rebuttals to the links I provided would be a good start.

<<I still can’t work out what your point is>>

I know, and it's a very sorry sight too.

I'm not necessarily implying that you're dumb. More that you're using the typical Creationist tactic of trying to create a sense of confusion.

<<...Compare that to this phrase, by analogy...>>

You're analogy is flawed in the sense that it assumes that Evolutionists are 'misguided'.

I'm willing to accept your analogy, and withdraw my point in that comment, if you can demonstrate that Evolutionary scientists are lost. Until then, you don't have a point.

<<It is, by definition, impossible to give an example of an absence of something.>>

Slick!

All you're doing here is evading my request by pinching and debauching the Atheist argument that you cannot >>DIS-PROVE<< a God that doesn't exist – it has nothing to do with "examples".

Here, I'll give you an example of your lack-of-logic to help start you off:

You've argued that evolution cannot be conclusively proven because we cannot repeat history, and admit the same can be said about creationism.

The lack of logic here, is that you are implying that they're now 'Even-Stevens'. Yet unlike creationism, evidence can be provided for evolution.

<<You suggest I should try ‘try proving creationism’ ... if you think I or anyone else could prove any one explanation for the origins of the world in 350 words.>>

Again you're evading my request.

You could always provide some links. You did that before, and when I checked them out, and told you that I couldn't find anything from those links that wasn't easily explained by the link I provided, you then moved on as if to pretend it was never brought up – a tactic of your's that's becoming all too frequent.

Why didn't/couldn't you find something that wasn't explained/dis-proven with the link I provided? If it's because you don't have the time, then there can't be many there.

As for your last paragraph, I'm going to have to save that for tomorrow due to the word limits.