“the university system arose at a time when jesuits were the only scientists…of course it was sponsored by the church! And my ID example is perfectly valid….if xians are so enamored of the scientific method…..if they even DERIVED IT as spencer suggests, why, by all means let ID theory be proven by the scientific method in the scientific community. Why not?
As is, it is the perfect example of dishonoring the scientific method, meh, to litigate instead of investigate, to foist an unproven psuedoscience on defenseless youth?
ta, andrew.
be ashamed.”
*sigh*
The university system predates the Jesuit order by at least two centuries. Didn’t they teach you church history at Immaculate Conception?
And you don’t listen real good. ID means nothing to me. I don’t believe it, yet I am Christian. The last Pope didn’t believe it, yet he was Christian. Your continued statement that “ID = Christianity” is based on either the purest ignorance or the most willful blindness, and neither speaks well of your argument.
News flash, smart guy: Christianity hasn’t been one, organized entity since, oh about the 5th century, when the Coptic/Marionite/Jacobite churches broke away. Add to that the East-West Schism of the 11th century and the Prod Reformation in the 16th, and you have a multiplicity of communities, each with their own authority.
SOME of those communities are all about ID, because they’re married to a literalist interpretation of the Bible. As I said before, they represent a minority, if an attention-getting one, (for which, I blame most folk’s abysmal cultural knowledge, and the media) Damning all Christianity for the ID crowd is as stupid as hmmmm, damning all Muslims for bin Laden. I’m sure a Sufi can appreciate that analogy.
Continuing, Roger Bacon’s house arrest was brief, and the result of the Condemnations of 1277, a ban on various propositions, some of which were scientifically valid, some of which were not. He was back at work within a year.
I won’t argue that the tension between the mystical and the natural never led to problems for those concerned with pure science. Such a statement is not born out by the historical record. But neither are your arguements, which seem less based on fact and more based on the kind of easy, breezy, popular assertions that people have been making regarding science and faith since the 18th century.
The Church’s support of science and the permittal of inquiry is a matter of public record. To deny this is to further the spread of popular misconceptions that one who believes in science as loudly as you do ought to eschew.
But this is far wide of the point. You write not with a sense of undoing misconception, but with venting your offended piety. You clearly know nothing about Christianity, but in the name of settling accounts will fling any tired trope you can (suggesting that the Hundred Years War and the Wars of the Roses were religious wars, which I pray you don’t really believe). This makes you only different in degree from he who calls for the death of anyone who draws the Prophet’s picture; you know better, but old habits die hard.
For the record, I don’t hold to the notion that Islam is incompatible with modernity. The facts on the ground do not bear such out. But it is instructive to look at Islam’s warrior theology, and the influence it has had. And it is fair, though one should do so carefully, to compare it with other faiths. To constantly shout a man down for this reveals more about you, than about him.
Finally, your writing style does not present the image you wish to impart. Bad spellings of simple English words, repetitive arguments dully worded, and the obnoxious use of “lol” scream “addled teenager” rather than “educated man.” It invites people not to take you seriously.
The Man said “Cast not your pearls before swine”, however, and I see myself losing interest in this debate, which I expect you to consider proof of your genius. Do so, and enjoy the wasteland of intellect you create.
