relda,
Again, I have to agree with most of your analysis. Note however, that in your quote Niebuhr (not Neibhur) speaks about religion, not theology. I think what Niebuhr stood for agrees more with what Mother Theresa and some South American priests are DOING than with what liberal theologians (Gutiérrez, Boff) or political theologians (J. B. Metz) are SAYING. This is the distinction I had in mind when speaking of theology as pure theory versus Christian practice.

In my mind this is similar to the distinction between pure and applied mathematics: to the “man in the street” only the latter is useful. Nevertheless, without pure mathematics, that keeps its ideas and concepts independent from their practical applicability, applied mathematics would soon stagnate, unable to face challenges by new discoveries by science about the physical world. Without today’s pure mathematics, there wouldn’t be any tomorrow’s applied mathematics or mathematical physics. Newton’s physics has met its limitations, but without his mathematics (calculus) you could not even formulate Einstein’s theory, QM or the new theories of physics.

Perhaps something similar can be said about the distinction between “pure“ theology and “applied“ theology or religious practice (Niebuhr?), and about the need to keep the “purity“ of the former, i.e. theology, “uninfected“ by political programs or ideologies that happen to be in the vogue, like Marxism or nationalism, concepts that - unlike Christianity - did not exist a couple of centuries ago, and will be unknown, except to historians, in another couple of centuries. What Niebuhr calls “religion of detachment from the world” is an extreme position, almost a caricature. The purity I had in mind was a theoretical or FORMAL (not practice oriented) detachment (from the physical world and political programs or ideologies respectively).

I know that there could be tensions - even academic “fights” - between those who emphasize more the pure aspect of mathematics, and those who place more weight on its immediate applicability, and obviously the same can be said about the two aspects of theology (ctd)

(ctd) Retrospectively, I can agree that

“the Christian faith has been so deeply involved in the religious sanctification of historic structures of injustice, that to a considerable degree a struggle for justice has been borne by "secular" force”

but only to a point. There are many things that were under the control of the medieval Church, and that She had to give up, often painfully, to the secular world after it learned to stand on its own feet. Not unlike a parent who has to give up control - often also painfully - over his/her matured offspring. Secular forces that could struggle for justice (or “do“ science, politics or whatever on their own) have existed only for the last couple of centuries; prior to that there was no alternative (in the West) to what - with the wisdom of hindsight - we can call “sanctification of historic structures of injustice”. I am not a historian but I would be careful about passing moral judgements on the past without paying due attention to the different circumstances and criterions of justice that prevailed at those times.

Dan,

<<...if you perceive all evidence within the framework or paradigm of evolution, then all the evidence will naturally fit that paradigm.>>

Here you go, yet again, trying to drag evolution down to the same fundamentalist, unscientific level of Creationism. Even though I've debunked this unprovable assertion of your's over and over, demonstrating that zealots can never be reasoned with.

Science is a search for truth – whatever the truth turns out to be, even if it’s evidently not what we wanted to believe it was. In science, it doesn’t matter what you believe; all that matters is why you believe it. This is why you try to make evolution sound like a religion – despite the fact that you fail every time!

<<If you go looking for evidence of evolution, then guess what you’re likely to find.>>

Wrong.

Take the founders of modern science for example. Their contributions to science were triggered by their belief in an 'Orderly Creator'.

But those Christian men, who relied on natural methodology rather than their Creationist beliefs (because that's the only way science can progress), found natural explanations for things previously believed to be miraculous, and they only ever succeeded when they didn't allow their religious convictions to subvert or inhibit their inquiry.

None of them were able to vindicate the Bible stories, and their efforts to do so only ever indicated another origin. Thus these men wouldn’t have supported Creationism as we know it today, and many of them wouldn’t have been Creationists if they’d understood evolution or natural selection.

So there goes your 'Orderly Creator' argument too!

Wow! Two birds with one stone! I'm getting better at this. :)

<<You can never scientifically disprove Darwinism or any other theory of history.>>

I've already given you just a few of the many ways that evolution can be falsified. Yet here you are, repeating the same falsity. Amazing!

You try to segregate 'experimental' science from 'historical' science, ignoring the fact that both are based on empirical observations, and both can be checked with testable hypotheses.

So your 'Azaria Chamberlain' example is irrelevant.

Continued...

...Continued

Your response to me is a little strange.

<<So why should anyone expect to find anything of value from the creationist article?>>

Um... Yes, that was part of my point. You're catching on! :)

<<...for those who say that all life evolved from non living chemicals, on what grounds do they justify honesty or truth telling...>>

Let's see...

They don't believe/claim that abiogenesis is the absolute truth, since the study of it is still in it's infancy and they can't conclusively prove it yet;

They don't twist and manipulate the data to fit their theories;

They don't have statements of faith such as the one at www.answersingenesis.org that say that any data that contradicts their beliefs is to be discarded... http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Shall I continue..?

<<I’m not sure what reasons you give to motivate me to go to the trouble.>>

How about, preventing yourself from looking foolish, for starters?

You and I both know why you won't read what I've linked to – it would be too confronting.

You're simply trying to justify to yourself why you won't read the facts that I've link to.

I like how you've used to term “pro-evolution websites” though. Although it's accurate, it makes it sound like they too have twisted the facts to support their theory. When in fact, they only speak of real science backed with logic and facts. Sites such as www.creationontheweb.com though, rely on the fact that their readers are already pre-disposed to believe what they say and won't verify the facts – just as you don't.

You know, Dan... I've been reading a lot of www.creationontheweb.com lately, and verifying their claims. And I've gotta hand it to 'em... Creationists may not have anything to support their beliefs, but there's one thing they have over real scientists... And that's their amazing ability to be so consistently proven to be absolutely wrong, about absolutely everything, 100% of the time, for such a long time, and still make-believe that their's is the absolute truth.

This is why Creation “scientists” can never be considered real scientists (only pseudo-scientists) regardless of their qualifications.

If there is a god, may he strike me..BeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeP!

Dew to technical difficulties, EVO is currently unavailable.

EVO. Smile.

<< Creationists may not have anything to support their beliefs, but there's one thing they have over real scientists... And that's their amazing ability to be so consistently proven to be absolutely wrong, about absolutely everything, 100% of the time, for such a long time, and still make-believe that their's is the absolute truth. >>

Quite. I recall a comment from a reformed fundamentalist on another site, along the lines of "the clash between science and religion never bothered me, because I knew that when the science contradicted my faith, then the science must be wrong".

In centuries to come, our descendants will be amazed that our civilisation achieved so much while so many still indulged in such primitive nonsense.