For Danmac - Abiogenesis

[DarkSun]

All I'm saying is that what we consider modern science was developed/completed largely by Christians who thought that science was a systematic way to understand the natural world God gave them so they could take "dominion" over the Earth for the better. And, it is a shame that people on both sides of the aisle try to force a false dichotomy on how the two cannot live peacefully; they are antithetical to one another.

I am not saying that science can only be done by Christians, or other theists, but what we call science was started by Christians for the greater glory of God.

And you're entitled to this opinion, but please realise that you're not going to convince anyone besides a theist that it's true. Most scientists today are atheistic, agnostic or both - very few are religious in the traditional sense and even fewer are actually theists. Of course most people who know something about science are going to disagree with you. I think you should just let it go to be honest.

 

[Autodidact]

All I'm saying is that what we consider modern science was developed/completed largely by Christians who thought that science was a systematic way to understand the natural world God gave them so they could take "dominion" over the Earth for the better. And, it is a shame that people on both sides of the aisle try to force a false dichotomy on how the two cannot live peacefully; they are antithetical to one another.

I am not saying that science can only be done by Christians, or other theists, but what we call science was started by Christians for the greater glory of God.

O.K., well that's an interesting an irrelevant historical side note. It would be nice if modern Christians could still see science that way, instead of making their religion dependent on rejecting science.

 

[DarkSun]

O.K., well that's an interesting an irrelevant historical side note. It would be nice if modern Christians could still see science that way, instead of making their religion dependent on rejecting science.

Funnily enough, many educated Christians do see science that way. There are just varying degrees of fundamentalism between denominations and communities of Christians in different places, which means that there are a lot of them who are more secure taking the Bible 100% literally, just as there are many who aren't like that. That said, I know two Christian students doing a bachelor of biomedical science at my university, and their GPA is pretty much perfect. So there you go.

 

[RedOne77]

So, "kind" means the same thing as "family"?

Do evos ever listen? I said that according to the most recent stuff I've heard, Todd Wood, a scientist who is a creationist, said that the research that he was doing suggests that for many land animals, the baramin is close to the taxa level of "family". This does not mean that "kind" is the same thing as "family".

Speciation above the family level has already been observed. Repeatedly.

Okay, this doesn't disprove creationism. Perhaps a new hypothesis needs to be developed to revise "kind", maybe that is an exception, maybe it wasn't a land animal making it irrelevant to my previous post, or a host of other things.

So, now your definition of "kind" changes from "family" to "family unless the Bible specifies otherwise". Could your definition be any more meaningless?

I never said that kind equates to family, that is a straw-man argument. As a part of any creationist model, it will incorporate certain Biblical features and use those features to understand the natural world. I am not saying that these are proven truth, it is the truth for creationists, but I understand that those without faith need something more tangible. Creation scientists are working on formulating a good baramin classification system. I personally find it interesting, but I haven't really looked into it - I focus more on what they teach in school, and that is evolution all the way. To really learn about baramin requires more time than I readily have available.

Also, one of the 'rules' of science, so to say, is that one observed instance where things didn't go as planned (like something falling up, not down) doesn't disprove a theory, rather that the theory isn't complete, or another unknown mechanism is responsible. An interesting thing one of my astronomy professors once said, was that to blame incorrect data to human error was a last resort only to be used when all other explanations have been exhausted, and even then there would be hesitation to say there was human error. Maybe it's just me, but perhaps the inflated ego surrounding academia has yielded some unneeded blindness or apathy to the malignant hubris that has metastasized throughout the body of science.

But you are already forming hypotheses based on a term you admit to not having an adequate definition for.

And that is exactly what early neuroscience was with the definition of consciousness. It was about developing the definition of consciousness through forming hypotheses to understand how the brain works.

Don't pass the blame by pointing at evolution and saying "but evolutionists change their definitions all the time". You do not even have a working definition to begin with, and that is the problem. Evolutionary scientists have working definitions which can be repeatedly tested.

I think the pot is calling the kettle black. Yes, some of the old definitions of kind have been debunked, and right now they are working on figuring this all out. I think we have the basics down on baramin and archetypes, just because we can't say this organism falls here or here, doesn't negate the whole, and as before, evolutionists are always changing what goes where on the 'tree' of life.

How do you not get this?

I understand the evolutionary side quite well, I just don't buy into it all, and prefer to see what the creation side will come up with before I jump into the evo camp.

 

[Commoner]

I understand the evolutionary side quite well, I just don't buy into it all, and prefer to see what the creation side will come up with before I jump into the evo camp.

Don't you want to hear what Scientology has to say about it before you jump into the creo/evo camps?

You're making it sound as though there's some disagreement among scientists about this issue...

 

[RedOne77]

And you're entitled to this opinion, but please realise that you're not going to convince anyone besides a theist that it's true. Most scientists today are atheistic, agnostic or both - very few are religious in the traditional sense and even fewer are actually theists. Of course most people who know something about science are going to disagree with you. I think you should just let it go to be honest.

It is not really an opinion, more of a fact. Many of the key figures in the scientific revolution were Christian who thought that science was a way to understand God's creation in a systematic way. It isn't a faith based statement, just plain old history. While many scientists today, for various reasons, are agnostic/atheist, about 45% of natural scientists believe in a God who answers prayer. If we take the standard definition of a theist, someone who believes in a God who takes an active role in their creation, then ruffly 45% of natural scientists are theists at some level. Many laymen believe that the vast majority, up to 90% or higher, are atheistic (just from talking to people around my campus), yet the reality is somewhat different. I would think that most people who know the history of the scientific revolution would agree with me, but I guess I'm too biased to make that statement in full confidence.

 

[DarkSun]

It is not really an opinion, more of a fact. Many of the key figures in the scientific revolution were Christian who thought that science was a way to understand God's creation in a systematic way. It isn't a faith based statement, just plain old history. While many scientists today, for various reasons, are agnostic/atheist, about 45% of natural scientists believe in a God who answers prayer. If we take the standard definition of a theist, someone who believes in a God who takes an active role in their creation, then ruffly 45% of natural scientists are theists at some level. Many laymen believe that the vast majority, up to 90% or higher, are atheistic (just from talking to people around my campus), yet the reality is somewhat different. I would think that most people who know the history of the scientific revolution would agree with me, but I guess I'm too biased to make that statement in full confidence.

And many key figures weren't Christian.

Just four from the top of my head...

Rosalind Franklin - Jewish.
Karl Pearson - Marxist, Eugenicist, Socal Darwinist.
Albert Einstein - Possible Deist.
Francis Galton - Non-theist / heretic.

Speaking of Francis Galton, he was a medical practioner who noticed, intuitively, that families praying beside a terminally ill patient seemed to have no effect on whether they'd live or die. So he decided to do a study on the efficacy of prayer... Here are his results. So... For some reason it seems that clergy don't seem to live much longer than anyone else, despite the fact that they're supposed to be the most holy men alive. People praying for their recovery are seemingly just as likely to be successful as if they were to pray for officers of the Army. To me, that shows that the scientific evidence has pretty much shown prayer to be ineffective. If you disagree, then perhaps you could explain why God doesn't seem to care how many people pray for you when your time comes to die?

 

[McBell]

And many key figures weren't Christian.

Just three from the top of my head...

Rosalind Franklin - Jewish.
Karl Pearson - Marxist, Eugenicist, Socal Darwinist.
Albert Einstein - Possible Deist.
Francis Galton - Non-theist / heretic.

Speaking of Francis Galton, he was a medical practioner who noticed, intuitively, that families praying beside a terminally ill patient seemed to have no effect on whether they'd live or die. So he decided to do a study on the efficacy of prayer... Here are his results. So... For some reason it seems that clergy don't seem to live much longer than anyone else, despite the fact that they're supposed to be the most holy men alive. People praying for their recovery are seemingly just as likely to be successful as if they were to pray for officers of the Army. To me, that shows that the scientific evidence has pretty much shown prayer to be ineffective. If you disagree, then perhaps you could explain why God doesn't seem to care how many people pray for you when your time comes to die?

you post reminded me of something I heard long long ago...

The Pope is supposed to be the one human who is the closest to god, yet he still rides in a bullet proof carriage...
​

 

[fantome profane]

The taxonomic system is a human concept. So just because we refuse to say nature opperates on a specific taxa (a human concept) without exception, which seems very silly, doesn't mean that our undertaking to get fully developed baramin futile. After all, evolutionists continually redo their evolutionary trees, bushes and webs of life constantly. We might as well say that because evolutionists changed what animals fall into what taxa, that evolution is false. It makes just as much sense as what you propose for creation.

You are missing the point. The theory of evolution predicts that life is fluid and changeable. The fact that scientists cannot make clear categories is evidence in favour of evolution. Simply stated if I predict that something is subject to change, and then observation shows that it is subject to change then my prediction has been supported. If on the other hand I predict that something is not subject to change and observations shows that it is then my prediction is shown to be false.

Yes “evolutionists” do use taxonomic systems as a matter of convenience, but nothing in the theory of evolution predicts that there should be a clear taxonomic system, quite the opposite.

Okay, this doesn't disprove creationism. Perhaps a new hypothesis needs to be developed to revise "kind", maybe that is an exception, maybe it wasn't a land animal making it irrelevant to my previous post, or a host of other things.

You are correct, this in and of itself does not falsify creationism. But that is because creationism is not falsifiable. There is absolutely nothing that you could even imagine that could possibly falsify creationism; creationism is not falsifiable. And being an unfalsifiable idea creationism is not a scientific concept and cannot be considered on par with a valid scientific theory like evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do evos ever listen? I said that according to the most recent stuff I've heard, Todd Wood, a scientist who is a creationist, said that the research that he was doing suggests that for many land animals, the baramin is close to the taxa level of "family". This does not mean that "kind" is the same thing as "family".

You said: "For example there may be a canidae kind, in which that kind would speciate into the many species of wolves, coyotes, foxes and so on that we see today."

Since canidae is a family, you're basically saying that "kind" means the same thing. Don't patronize me just because you're using nebulously defined terms.

If "kind" is different to "family" then specify in what way it is different.

Okay, this doesn't disprove creationism. Perhaps a new hypothesis needs to be developed to revise "kind", maybe that is an exception, maybe it wasn't a land animal making it irrelevant to my previous post, or a host of other things.

It's not supposed to disprove creationism - just disprove your hypothesis of "kinds".

What's more, you have yet to define "kind" so you cannot "revise" it. In fact, until you have a definition for "kind" you can't really do anything with it.

I never said that kind equates to family, that is a straw-man argument. As a part of any creationist model, it will incorporate certain Biblical features and use those features to understand the natural world. I am not saying that these are proven truth, it is the truth for creationists, but I understand that those without faith need something more tangible. Creation scientists are working on formulating a good baramin classification system. I personally find it interesting, but I haven't really looked into it - I focus more on what they teach in school, and that is evolution all the way. To really learn about baramin requires more time than I readily have available.

In other words, you're making assertions about something you admittedly have no real knowledge of. If you "haven't looked into it" then how can you claim that "creation scientists" are making any progress whatsoever? Speaking as someone who has looked into it, I can tell you that they have made no such progress and look set to continue making none.

Also, one of the 'rules' of science, so to say, is that one observed instance where things didn't go as planned (like something falling up, not down) doesn't disprove a theory, rather that the theory isn't complete, or another unknown mechanism is responsible. An interesting thing one of my astronomy professors once said, was that to blame incorrect data to human error was a last resort only to be used when all other explanations have been exhausted, and even then there would be hesitation to say there was human error. Maybe it's just me, but perhaps the inflated ego surrounding academia has yielded some unneeded blindness or apathy to the malignant hubris that has metastasized throughout the body of science.

Once you are actually able to present some creation science, then you can start lecturing people on blindness and apathy.

And that is exactly what early neuroscience was with the definition of consciousness. It was about developing the definition of consciousness through forming hypotheses to understand how the brain works.

That makes no sense on any level.

I think the pot is calling the kettle black.

How is that?

Yes, some of the old definitions of kind have been debunked, and right now they are working on figuring this all out. I think we have the basics down on baramin and archetypes, just because we can't say this organism falls here or here, doesn't negate the whole, and as before, evolutionists are always changing what goes where on the 'tree' of life.

But we aren't forming hypotheses based on terms which lack definitions. In order to form a testable hypothesis you need to define your terms - this is something which "creation scientists" cannot do, and instead simply form hypotheses around words and phrases which have no definition whatsoever.

In other words: If you do not yet have a definition of "kind" then you have no basis on which to assert that species cannot evolve above that level. Scientists change definitions, but the point is that they have those definitions to begin with.

Again, why do you not yet understand this?

I understand the evolutionary side quite well, I just don't buy into it all, and prefer to see what the creation side will come up with before I jump into the evo camp.

This isn't a debate, at least not in science.

 

[camanintx]

All I'm saying is that what we consider modern science was developed/completed largely by Christians who thought that science was a systematic way to understand the natural world God gave them so they could take "dominion" over the Earth for the better.

What we consider modern science was developed over thousands of years by many people, most of whom were not Christian. Ancient Egyptians developed empirical methods which were later formalized by Aristotle. Plato developed deductive reasoning. The first experimental scientific method originated in the Arabic world. While the people you name made great contributions to the modern scientific method, as Autodidact pointed out, their Christianity appears to have been more of a hinderance which they had to overcome (remember Galileo).

 

[RedOne77]

And many key figures weren't Christian.

Yet many of the most influential during the scientific revolution era were. Some of the more notable ones are Lavoisier, the person who essentially put the last nail in the coffin of alchemy with his oxygen theory, and is also considered the father of modern chemistry. Then there was Kepler and Copernicus, who revolutionized astronomy, and Copernicus had an official job/position within the Catholic church. And despite the many ideas around Gallileo, he himself was religious and friends with one of the Popes at the time.

Just four from the top of my head...

Rosalind Franklin - Jewish.
Karl Pearson - Marxist, Eugenicist, Socal Darwinist.
Albert Einstein - Possible Deist.
Francis Galton - Non-theist / heretic.

None of them were responsible for the scientific revolution, they all came after. And again, if you want to talk about modern scientists, ruffly 45% of them are religious beyond agnostic and deistic. I am not saying that science is a religious enterprise (if anything I think science today has become too atheistic in its portrayed image to the public), only that out of first modern scientists (those around the time of the scientific revolution), many of them were Christian, and thought that science was a way to understand God's creation and to exercise responsible dominion over the Earth/universe to make it a better place due to religious ideology; for example the command God gave Adam in Genesis to have dominion over the earth and animals (it is/was seen as a mandate from God to learn about the natural world and use what we know to make it a better place). Nor am I saying that one has to, or should, be religious or Christian to partake in science. Many scientists are without faith and are very good scientists (Einstein is a prime example, although a possible deist as you've pointed out). I just find it appalling that people (on both sides) say that science and faith can't get along.

Speaking of Francis Galton, he was a medical practioner who noticed, intuitively, that families praying beside a terminally ill patient seemed to have no effect on whether they'd live or die. So he decided to do a study on the efficacy of prayer... Here are his results. So... For some reason it seems that clergy don't seem to live much longer than anyone else, despite the fact that they're supposed to be the most holy men alive. People praying for their recovery are seemingly just as likely to be successful as if they were to pray for officers of the Army. To me, that shows that the scientific evidence has pretty much shown prayer to be ineffective. If you disagree, then perhaps you could explain why God doesn't seem to care how many people pray for you when your time comes to die?

Prayer is an interesting subject, and I have heard of that study before. And others that showed that people who have died and saw their body via [astro-projection] (for lack of a better word) and then were revived, couldn't recall specific things, especially regarding unusual items in the room placed just for such an event.

In any case, I wouldn't say that these experiments show prayer to be ineffective. I think that there are many misconceptions about prayer, even within the religious community. I see prayer to be more than just formalized communication with a religious entity, rather it is a way of life. Yes, having sort of a more formalized prayer session is still important in my opinion, but to base prayer just on that is to seriously diminish your understanding of what prayer is or should be.

I think this ex Bishop says it much better than I. YouTube - livingthequestions's Channel

If you disagree, then perhaps you could explain why God doesn't seem to care how many people pray for you when your time comes to die?

To answer your question directly, if God did base what would happen based on how many prayer requests came his way, it would contradict everything I believe about God being a truly loving God. I think Bishop Spong (see link above) explains this well when he compared his dying Wife to a random nobody (the garbage man) and what it meant in terms of a loving God being partial towards one because of 'prayer' requests.

 

[RedOne77]

What we consider modern science was developed over thousands of years by many people, most of whom were not Christian. Ancient Egyptians developed empirical methods which were later formalized by Aristotle. Plato developed deductive reasoning. The first experimental scientific method originated in the Arabic world. While the people you name made great contributions to the modern scientific method, as Autodidact pointed out, their Christianity appears to have been more of a hinderance which they had to overcome (remember Galileo).

Quite the opposite. Galileo himself was a Christian, and got along quite well with one of the Popes. His problem wasn't so much a scientific one as a personal one. Galileo was a very hard person to get along with and made many enemies that had nothing to do with his science, but personality. He was somewhat protected by the original Pope, but when his successor came in Galileo had so many enemies it was only a matter of time before he was arrested. For a while, the Church was the center of scientific learning, and it was the Church that preserved and advanced science. Of course not everything the Church has done bettered scientific endeavors, but not everything done by the Church was anti-science either.

For a while, much of the scientific learning of the world happened inside Christian monasteries. The most famous incident would be Mendel and his pea plant experiments to formalize the basics of genetics. To make an overarching statement about how Christianity had slowed or regressed scientific progress is to oversimplify the complex dynamics between science and religion that sets up a false dichotomy portraying science as pure good and religion as pure evil.

Yes, many important contributions were made by the Greek and Arab world, and while some Arabs used what we would call the scientific method, it is understood that it wasn't until the scientific revolution that such methodology was really systematized and used widespread. And there are noticalbe differences between the scientific method and Greek philosophy; most notably the lack of observation required (as opposed to the amount required today), they were more into thinking as a general rule.

 

[camanintx]

And there are noticalbe differences between the scientific method and Greek philosophy; most notably the lack of observation required (as opposed to the amount required today), they were more into thinking as a general rule.

Aristotle's scientific method was all about empirical observation and experience. His only problem was a lack of devices like clocks and thermometers to quantify his measurements.

 

[Autodidact]

Yet many of the most influential during the scientific revolution era were. Some of the more notable ones are Lavoisier, the person who essentially put the last nail in the coffin of alchemy with his oxygen theory, and is also considered the father of modern chemistry. Then there was Kepler and Copernicus, who revolutionized astronomy, and Copernicus had an official job/position within the Catholic church. And despite the many ideas around Gallileo, he himself was religious and friends with one of the Popes at the time.

Goody goody for them, so what on earth does it have to do with this thread about abiogenesis?

If it makes you happy that some early scientists were Christian, then start a thread about it. Most of the world's great scientists were Jewish, but I don't take any credit for it, and don't feel the need to boast about it.

None of them were responsible for the scientific revolution, they all came after. And again, if you want to talk about modern scientists, ruffly 45% of them are religious beyond agnostic and deistic. I am not saying that science is a religious enterprise (if anything I think science today has become too atheistic in its portrayed image to the public), only that out of first modern scientists (those around the time of the scientific revolution), many of them were Christian, and thought that science was a way to understand God's creation and to exercise responsible dominion over the Earth/universe to make it a better place due to religious ideology; for example the command God gave Adam in Genesis to have dominion over the earth and animals (it is/was seen as a mandate from God to learn about the natural world and use what we know to make it a better place). Nor am I saying that one has to, or should, be religious or Christian to partake in science. Many scientists are without faith and are very good scientists (Einstein is a prime example, although a possible deist as you've pointed out). I just find it appalling that people (on both sides) say that science and faith can't get along.

Who is saying that in this thread? It's the only Creationist in the thread. You're right. Christians need to stop teaching that Christianity depends on fighting science.

So why are you fighting science?

 

[Autodidact]

Quite the opposite. Galileo himself was a Christian, and got along quite well with one of the Popes. His problem wasn't so much a scientific one as a personal one. Galileo was a very hard person to get along with and made many enemies that had nothing to do with his science, but personality. He was somewhat protected by the original Pope, but when his successor came in Galileo had so many enemies it was only a matter of time before he was arrested. For a while, the Church was the center of scientific learning, and it was the Church that preserved and advanced science. Of course not everything the Church has done bettered scientific endeavors, but not everything done by the Church was anti-science either.

For a while, much of the scientific learning of the world happened inside Christian monasteries. The most famous incident would be Mendel and his pea plant experiments to formalize the basics of genetics. To make an overarching statement about how Christianity had slowed or regressed scientific progress is to oversimplify the complex dynamics between science and religion that sets up a false dichotomy portraying science as pure good and religion as pure evil.

Yes, many important contributions were made by the Greek and Arab world, and while some Arabs used what we would call the scientific method, it is understood that it wasn't until the scientific revolution that such methodology was really systematized and used widespread. And there are noticalbe differences between the scientific method and Greek philosophy; most notably the lack of observation required (as opposed to the amount required today), they were more into thinking as a general rule.

You have a twisted understanding of European history, but it really belongs in a separate thread.

 

[DarkSun]

Yet many of the most influential during the scientific revolution era were. Some of the more notable ones are Lavoisier, the person who essentially put the last nail in the coffin of alchemy with his oxygen theory, and is also considered the father of modern chemistry. Then there was Kepler and Copernicus, who revolutionized astronomy, and Copernicus had an official job/position within the Catholic church. And despite the many ideas around Gallileo, he himself was religious and friends with one of the Popes at the time.

None of them were responsible for the scientific revolution, they all came after. And again, if you want to talk about modern scientists, ruffly 45% of them are religious beyond agnostic and deistic. I am not saying that science is a religious enterprise (if anything I think science today has become too atheistic in its portrayed image to the public), only that out of first modern scientists (those around the time of the scientific revolution), many of them were Christian, and thought that science was a way to understand God's creation and to exercise responsible dominion over the Earth/universe to make it a better place due to religious ideology; for example the command God gave Adam in Genesis to have dominion over the earth and animals (it is/was seen as a mandate from God to learn about the natural world and use what we know to make it a better place). Nor am I saying that one has to, or should, be religious or Christian to partake in science. Many scientists are without faith and are very good scientists (Einstein is a prime example, although a possible deist as you've pointed out). I just find it appalling that people (on both sides) say that science and faith can't get along.

Well, yes, it is quite interesting that most of the well-known scientists during the revolution were Christian. But I'm not sure what your point is - are you trying to say that these scientists were only good at what they did because they were Christian? If so, then I would have to agree with some of your other statements... Science and religion can coexist, and it's a pity that they don't. A theist can make just as great a contribution to science as a non-theist. Being an atheist does not give an individual any advantage over a theist in this regard... but it works both ways. At the same time, being a theist does not give an individual any advantage over an atheist where science is concerned.

With that in mind, yes, it is an interesting observation you've made that a lot of the scientists were Christian during the Renaissance, as well as during the 1700s to the 1800s. But I don't think that's because Christians make good scientists in particular. Yes, Christianity and science were correlated in this time period. But I think it's more likely that the causal link here was that most of the people in the renaissance and beyond were Christian. So that makes it more likely that the people who played a pivotal role in science, at that time, were Christian.

Prayer is an interesting subject, and I have heard of that study before. And others that showed that people who have died and saw their body via [astro-projection] (for lack of a better word) and then were revived, couldn't recall specific things, especially regarding unusual items in the room placed just for such an event.

In any case, I wouldn't say that these experiments show prayer to be ineffective. I think that there are many misconceptions about prayer, even within the religious community. I see prayer to be more than just formalized communication with a religious entity, rather it is a way of life. Yes, having sort of a more formalized prayer session is still important in my opinion, but to base prayer just on that is to seriously diminish your understanding of what prayer is or should be.

I think this ex Bishop says it much better than I. YouTube - livingthequestions's Channel

To answer your question directly, if God did base what would happen based on how many prayer requests came his way, it would contradict everything I believe about God being a truly loving God. I think Bishop Spong (see link above) explains this well when he compared his dying Wife to a random nobody (the garbage man) and what it meant in terms of a loving God being partial towards one because of 'prayer' requests.

In less convoluted terms... you believe that the act of love involved in prayer is effective, and that prayer is an effective means of worship thereby letting God's love shine through you. But at the same time, you believe that God won't listen to your prayers; that He will make up His own mind about what He's going to do? That's what I'm getting from that. And if I'm interpretting correctly, then I agree with that priest. Actively showing love and compassion to all things, human or otherwise, can be an incredibly powerful thing to do.

And I also agree that it would be incredibly unloving for God to intervene in the life of a priest's wife and not in the life of a garbage collector. I understand only too well that asking God to change things through prayer is like saying that God's plans are so unimportant that He will change them if you ask Him to. In all, I realise what this priest is saying - and I whole-heartedly agree that changing the definition of "prayer" to "meditating and contemplating the energy of God" would be worthwhile, because this belief in a God who intervenes whenever we ask Him to is so obviously flawed. I also realise that the belief that God does not interfere in human affairs is not a Christian one.

 

[RedOne77]

You have a twisted understanding of European history, but it really belongs in a separate thread.

Perhaps I was too partial to the Churches influence in scientific developments, and underplayed the importance of Greek philosophy retained by the Middle East and then transferred to Europe. But for a while, the Church was a place of learning (that is how Darwin was able to study nature while in seminary), and you can't blame someone for advocating their religion with a little hype. I honestly think that the Church goes in cycles, sometimes it's science friendly, sometimes it's not, and sometimes it all depends on the geographical location as well. The upper northern part of Europe was more friendly to science than the southern part for example.

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps I was too partial to the Churches influence in scientific developments, and underplayed the importance of Greek philosophy retained by the Middle East and then transferred to Europe. But for a while, the Church was a place of learning (that is how Darwin was able to study nature while in seminary), and you can't blame someone for advocating their religion with a little hype. I honestly think that the Church goes in cycles, sometimes it's science friendly, sometimes it's not, and sometimes it all depends on the geographical location as well. The upper northern part of Europe was more friendly to science than the southern part for example.

What I don't understand is why you're going on about history in a thread about science.