Grim, you’re not the only one a little confused. I too have wondered whether we have our wires tangled in our communication. You’ve come out openly for evolution, yet you talk about the creation (implying a creator).

I was attempting to agree with some of what you said, in particular, your statement, ‘science is the study of creation’ (the resultant acts of a creator). Yet you don’t seem to appreciate how closely such a statement is tied to Christian thought emanating from the Middle Ages.

I have never denied that other cultures, the ancient Greeks, the Chinese and others, made certain discoveries and important contributions. Yet it was in the West that science as we have come to know it first truly came to flourish.

But I don’t understand from your reasoning why you say science must include a study of the nature or possible existence of God. We have both said here that science is the study of creation. However, theology is the study of the Creator. The two studies are oriented differently (though both are adequately logical.)

By analogy, I know a number of good car mechanics, each of whom has studied and well understands the workings of cars, but without ever having met a Ford designer or been to a car assembly plant. They well understand cars without having to seek how or by whom the cars were made.

Your later statement describing devout Christians who were not ‘restricted by Christian dogma’ is self refuting. For by definition, a devout Christian will uphold Christian doctrine.

When you say that evolution is successful and widely accepted, are you saying that it is successful by merit of it being widely accepted? I wouldn’t suppose so. Even if I presently cast my vote with an overwhelming minority (as often a good scientist has done in the past), I am happy to be counted as a Darwin Doubter.

Actually Dan, if you go back to my original statement:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292&page=30

You might notice I wrote 'creation', with quotes. I used quotes to signify the word is not mine, and may or may not be appropriate; the jury is still out.
I most certainly do appreciate the implications of the word 'creation'; I don't think any modern human holds a serious belief that life on Earth -or Earth itself- is eternal, and has always existed. In the sense of 'coming into being' I don't think it unreasonable to use the words 'the Earth was created out of cosmic dust, by the force of gravity'. No creator there, although you're welcome to start the children's game:
“Well, who created gravity then?”
To which the obvious answer is “Well who created God then?”
And so we go.
I don't find your analogy compelling. In working on any vehicle, the first thing a mechanic reaches for is a workshop manual, supplied by the manufacturer explaining precisely how and why the various components work. In fact, I bet the most common complaint mechanics make about manuals, is when they are translated from a different language, like Japanese, or Chinese ('the serenity of the carburettor is manifested by it's sublime goodness').
Mohammed clearly understood this problem by claiming his words came directly from God.
In the absence of a manual, the mechanic has no choice but to completely disassemble the problem part, and try to understand what the designer was thinking, when he made the part.

“Your later statement describing devout Christians who were not ‘restricted by Christian dogma’ is self refuting. For by definition, a devout Christian will uphold Christian doctrine.”
I beg your pardon?
Do I really have to list all the Christian scientists (which you were so keen to claim as your own) who fought with the Church, and faced excommunication for their 'heretical' ideas?

Grim wrote: Do I really have to list all the Christian scientists (which you were so keen to claim as your own) who fought with the Church, and faced excommunication for their 'heretical' ideas?

Dear Grim,

Excommunication is not as serious as death.

Michael Servetus (1511-53), held views, concerning the Trinity in particular, that brought condemnation from the theologians of the Reformation as well as from those of the Roman Catholic Church. He worked on an edition of Ptolemy's geography and other scientific works, then studied medicine. Servetus became well-known for his ability in disection and had unusual success as a physician; he discovered that some of the blood circulates through the lungs.

When (1553) he had a work setting forth his ideas of Christianity secretly printed, investigation was begun by the Inquisition. Servetus, arrested, tried, and condemned, escaped from prison. Several months later, while making his way to Italy, he was seized in Geneva by Calvin's order. There, after a long trial, in which Calvin's condemnation was a stern factor, he was burned on Oct. 27, 1553.

Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600), an Italian philosopher, mathematician and astronomer, supported heliocentrism and the infinity of the universe. He went beyond the Copernican model in identifying the sun as just one of an infinite number of independently moving heavenly bodies. He is the first man to have conceptualized the universe as a continuum where the stars we see at night are of identical nature as the sun. After his death he gained considerable fame. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, commentators focusing on his astronomical beliefs regarded him as a martyr for free thought and modern scientific ideas.

Bruno also wrote extensive works on the art of memory, a loosely organized group of mnemonic techniques and principles. Recent studies of Bruno have focused on his qualitative approach to mathematics and his application of the spatial paradigms of geometry to language.

In 1600 the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy and burned him at the stake.

Catholic and Protestant branches of the Christian superstition murdered scientists!

Dear david f,
Of course, you are right about the facts, although the last (sweeping) sentence seems to be more emotional than rational.

The Church condemned those people not because they were scientists (they did not have the concept as we have it today) but because she thought they were encroaching on her territory of responsibility (theology). This is not to defend her sole right to that territory, and certainly not the way in which she carried out those “condemnations”. However, at that time not only the hierarchy but also the “heretics” lacked a distinction between theology, philosophy and science as we understand them today.

Today - judging by Stefan Zweig’s Ein Gewissen gegen die Gewalt (Conscience against violence) - Servetus would have probably ended up in a lunatic asylum. Bruno is a different matter, although he also seems to have been “condemned” more because of his “pantheism” than heliocentrism.

This is a circular arguement going nowhere.

Dear George,

My last sentence: "Catholic and Protestant branches of the Christian superstition murdered scientists!" was quite rational. It was posted after deliberate thought. I expected a protest, and you fulfilled my expectations. When a group of believers (Believers may mean believers in a secular philosophy such as Marxism.) tortures, imprisons and kills dissenters, insists on no questioning of its doctrines, rejects scientific findings because they conflict with what they regard as scripture and takes scriptural material as literal truth rather than raw material for analysis and the source of moral lessons I term it superstition. Not all Christians operate on that level. Many are able to tolerate those who differ, discuss differences rationally, accept scientific findings and use their holy narratives as a source of inspiration and a basis for ethical behaviour. You seem to operate on that level. However, many on this list operate on a superstitious level. I do not accept that superstition.

I doubt that Servetus would have ended in a lunatic asylum. We do not have enough people in those institutions. Western governments have emptied out such places. In many cases they are located on prime land for real estate developers. Many people who could be better cared for in those places make up the ranks of the homeless. I am not familiar with Zweig's work, but I have read Servetus' biography. He did not seem the least bit insane.

Bruno was condemned not because he was a scientist, but because he used scientific reasoning and observations to doubt the picture of the universe according to the Christian tradition of the time. Servetus was burned because because he was regarded as a religious heretic. Both men were actually scientists whether the term was current at that time. I assume that scientists coming after them and knowing of their fate would be extremely reluctant to express any religious doubts.

I regard it as abominable and inexcusable to burn people at the stake for any reason at all or to punish people in any way for merely disagreeing with a doctrine.