Dan,

<< You [Rhian] contend that science has shown that the miraculous events in the Biblical record didn’t happen (20/8). Could I ask how science might have done this?>>

Science couldn’t disproved miracles, since miracles (had they actually ever happened) would defy science.

<< I understand that repeatability is foundational to the scientific method.>>

Yes, repeatability of concepts, not events. So your subtle (or not-so-subtle) jibe at evolution has flopped there like every other one of your attempts to discredit evolution.

But I’ve already explained this to you before, which just goes to show how intellectually dishonest you can be when you’re under the impression that someone who has pulled you up on something before isn’t reading.

<< I would agree that it is a good thing that scientific texts are revised and updated as scientific knowledge accumulates.>>

Strange coming from a creationist considering absolutely every biological and geographical discovery supports evolution 100%.

<<A creationist might say, well, we have to start our thinking somewhere...>>

That would be sensible.

<<... may as well start here and see how far we get.>>

And no matter how long we’re proven wrong, we’ll continue to believe the same and simply distort the truth to fit our beliefs?

Why haven’t Creationists moved on to one of the other Creation stories? Why the delay?

Face it, Dan, Creationists are simply following an unshakable and irrational literal belief in ancient mythology. They’re not carefully selecting a starting point as you imply.

<<Is that more nutty than the premise that ‘nothing exploded and became everything’, which is the current fashionable cosmological starting point?>>

Nobody says that ‘nothing exploded and became everything’. But you’ve had this explained to you before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121703, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121564), so you are simply being dishonest here - again. But I guess that’s what we’ve come to expect from you here on OLO, unfortunately.

<<... even young earth creationists among the ranks...>>

Could you provide an example of some of these people?

Oh, and in regards to the cleverly edited documentary from Ben Stein, here’s the truth behind it http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth.

Game, set, match.

See ya.

waterboy,
>>science has progressed most rapidly in the western world where Christianity provided the dominant culture<<
That is exactly what I was saying. After all, also “medieval theology” that Whitehead refers to was characteristic more of the Western part of Christianity. Nevertheless the contributions by Lobachevsky, Mendeleev, Lomonosov etc. came a century or two before major contributions to contemporary science by people from civilisations with non-Christian background.

>> at least up to the time of the enlightenment<<
Since nothing comparable to Enlightenment appeared in other civilisations, and was not imposed on Christianity from the outside (the Enlightenment thinkers did not come from non-western civilisations or cultures) it has to be seen as a product of the Christian ethos. This is not the same as saying it was a product of the (Catholic) Church. The Church indeed opposed “enlightened thinking” and science - seeing them as encroaching on its domain of competence and responsibilities - until it came to understand what Galileo expressed so succinctly. Today she simply tries to interpret what scientists - Christian or not - claim to have found from the point of view of a world-view compatible with the presuppositions of the Christian faith in a contemporary Catholic formulation, as it has evolved over centuries.

Neither did I spell out “rediscovery of Greek philosophers and the influence of Islam” when mentioning “other influences”. Whether or not they were more important than the “Christian way of thinking“ itself, that they were injected into, is a matter of “taste“, preconceived preferences or bias. (The present pope in his misunderstood Regensburg lecture emphasised the importance of Hellenic contribution to modern Christian theologies, for which he was criticised by some “sola scriptura” theologians).

>>emergence of science in the west is very closely correlated with the retreat of Christianity<<
You are right to speak here about correlation, not cause and effect. I believe that the role of science as an ersatz-religion is only temporary, and that both religion and science will retreat to their proper roles in the formation of world-views of the future.

Jayb,
Were you saying that NASA succeeded in putting a man on the moon because they had a lot of money? Don’t they deserve any credit for their brain work and dedication?

I’m not calling for admiration of America’s social or health systems, or their foreign policy. I was using them to point out this nation’s superior technological achievements, made within an overtly Christian culture, as counter example to Waterboy's assessment of science’s relationship to faith.

Overall in the West’s history, faith and science have gone together profitably more often than not.

Grim,
I like your sentiment, “question and challenge the orthodoxy of the day.” However this isn’t always easy, if you dare try. ID proponents know a lot about this at the moment.

George

Naturally Im playing devil's advocate here and I fully appreciate the difficulties in weighing up the influences that contributed to the emergence of modern science.Clearly modern mathematics owes great debts to Islamic culture (particularly the 9th and 10th century algebraists) and to classical Greece but how exactly did the Christian Church 'encourage'science?

The thesis I am suggesting is that from the time of the reformation the Roman church's cultural and political domination of Europe is on the wane.Protest,revolt and schism undermine Roman authority.In fact the authority of Rome is challenged in the west, theologically, politically and intellectually.It is the breakdown of Roman authority that creates the intellectual space in which science grows.I seriously doubt that the Church provided the stimulus for scientific 'exploration'.The Church did, however, provide education and without doubt that is fundamental to the growth of science. However, once 'educated' people discovered Diophantus,Pythagoras, Euclid, Aristotle et al intellectual curiosity took over from religious discipline and they soon found themselves in conflict with the church.Soon the political, intellectual and social forces mounting against the Church began to have their effect and the reformation and the enlightenment follow. If it had not lost its grip on power I seriously doubt the Church would ever have allowed the religious and intellectual freedom that we,in the west,enjoy today.

You pointed to 19th century Russian mathematicians as examples of work done within a culture dominated by the Church(though not Rome in that case).The fact that scientific work was done in an otherwise religious culture is not in itself evidence that the work was stimulated, encouraged or in any way dependent on the Church.It was not long before revolution dramatically changed Russian culture and society and significantly rejected religion in general and Christianity in particular.What does that say about the relationship between scientific/intellectual freedom and religion.

It is fair to say,however,that the Church is slowly adapting to the new environment in which it finds itself.I pray that it adapts quickly enough to save itself and that it will regain its prophetic voice and direct its attention to issues of justice, freedom and hope.

I must admit, I am rather taken with this construction.

>>Since nothing comparable to Enlightenment appeared in other civilisations, and was not imposed on Christianity from the outside (the Enlightenment thinkers did not come from non-western civilisations or cultures) it has to be seen as a product of the Christian ethos.<<

On this basis, the English Civil War was a product of the Royalist ethos. As indeed was the Russian Revolution.

It is a concept that eliminates all possibility that revolutions are caused by dissent, or dissatisfaction, or discontent.

DSM,

Your comment "Overall in the West’s history, faith and science have gone together profitably more often than not."

Is wildly optomistic on your part.

Science progressed in spite of the church. In fact the rate of progression of science is almost directly inverse to the control of the church over society.

The pinnacle of the church's power was the dark ages. As church's grip slipped and fragmented, so did the intelligensia begin to explore nature and it was tolerated so long as there was no conflict with church dogma, but many scientists were burnt at the stake for heresy.

The age of enlightenment in the 17th and 18th century saw many such instances of direct conflict culminating in the persecution of Galilleo which irrevocably demolished the credibility of the church in scientific matters after which it retired only to comment on the "ethics" of scientific progress.

The establishment of secular societies has seen science accelerate beyond expectations leaving faith based societies to stagnate.