The Myth of Christianity Founding Modern Science and Medicine

[Deicide]

The Myth of Christianity Founding Modern Science and Medicine
(And the Hole Left by the Christian Dark Ages)

Commentary by Jim Walker
Originated: 22 May 2007

Over the years I have received several letters from Christians who attempt to salvage their religion by claiming that Christianity established modern science and medicine. Without Christianity, they claim, we would not have modern science, medicine or hospitals. Almost invariably, they mention scientists such as Isaac Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, Boyle, Haller, Euler, Vesalius, or others who believed in a Christian god. Moreover, some love to report that the Church continues to finance and encourage experimental science, including the Vatican Observatory as one of the oldest astronomical institutes in the world, and the Trinity College at the University of Cambridge which claims many alumni scientists. Therefore, from these examples (don't you see?) Christianity established modern science.

Nothing about these arrogant Christian claims could stand further from the truth.

Please understand that these kind of Christian apologetic arguments fail for several reasons which fall into the trap of several well known fallacies including: appeal to ignorance (failing to understand the history of Christianity in how it barred scientific thought, and in many cases still does); confusing correlation with causation (just because a scientist accepted a religion doesn't mean his science derived from it); and non sequiturs (it doesn't follow that just because a few scientists believed in God that science resulted from it). The myth also spreads through the bandwagon fallacy (appealing to the popular notion that Christianity began modern science), and confirmation bias (list all the Christian scientists, but exclude their rejection of dogmas that conflicted with their science).

Just because some Christians did scientific work or that the Church helped fund scientific research has nothing to do with the founding or even the advancement of science. Not only does it not follow, but the historical record shows that science progressed in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

From its very beginning, the Church has served as the largest stumbling block against scientific progress in the history of mankind. When Constantine established orthodox Christianity in 325 CE (at the Council of Nicaea), scientific investigation virtually stopped. Up until that time, Greek and Roman science and medicine stood at the pinnacle of reasoned thought. With the aimed destruction of any thought that went against religious dogma, the Christians tried to destroy every pagan and scientific literature including the great libraries of the world.

The destruction of the library of Alexandra (the greatest learning center in the world) and the murder of Hypatia by Christians in 415 CE, marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As Ruth Hurmence Green once wrote, "There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as The Dark Ages." The Priests of Christianity kept the public from education, including the study of their own Bible. Only the hierarchy of the Church allowed education for themselves, and when their thoughts went against their own dogmas (as eventually it would have to) they barred it as heresy. It came from the Church itself that tried to destroy free scientific inquiry, even amongst its priests.

When Christianity took over Europe, scientific and engineering advancement virtually stopped. The great Roman aqueducts represented one of the greatest engineering feats of the ancient world and provided clean water to cities and industrial sites for centuries. When the Christians took over they no longer supported these great public services and the aqueducts became ruins -- monuments of the past glory of Rome. Christianity banned the Roman bath houses and bathing itself became an act of sin. The ancient Roman sewers no longer worked. For centuries after, Christians lived in filth, ignorance, and disease.

During the Black Death in the 1300s, the masses turned to the Church instead of medicine. The Church explained that the plague came as an act of God, not nature, as a punishment for sins of not obeying Church authority. The Church banned Greek and Roman medicine to fight the plague and considered it heresy. After the plague, the Church banned any formal discipline of medicine.

Christians love to believe that Christianity invented the first hospitals in the name of Christian charity, but the history of medical care betrays this belief. The earliest known institutions that claimed to provide cure came from the ancient pagans, long before Christianity. The earliest mention of cure centers came from Egyptians where they aimed to provide medical care in their temples. The Greeks also used their temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius where they admitted the sick (the medical profession still uses the Rod of Ascelepius, a serpent wound around a staff, as its medical symbol. The serpent, of course, represents Satan in Christian culture). In India, King Ashoka founded hospitals in 230 BCE, that included physicians and nursing staffs. The Romans created valetudinaria for the care of sick slaves, gladiators and soldiers at around 100 BCE. Some credit the Sinhalese (Sri Lankans) as responsible for the introduction of the first dedicated hospitals (Sivikasotthi-Sala) to the world at around 4 BCE. The first teaching hospital came from the Persian Empire where physicians taught students, at the Academy of Gundishapur in 6th and 7th centuries.

The first Christian hospitals, on the other hand, did not aim to cure the sick through scientific medicine at all, but rather to condemn or to save the sick through religious practices. They used these hospitals more as asylums to put away sinners, lepers, and the diseased to isolate them from the rest of the populace. Medieval Christian hospitals represented religious institutions, run by monks and nuns, not by trained physicians.

At its very best, Christian medicine did not advance past that of Galen, the Greek physician of 2nd century who wrote medical texts and whose theories dominated Western Christian medicine for over 1300 years! Many early heretic physicians hid their knowledge of Galen to prevent others of accusing them of heresy. Not until the 1530s (during the Renaissance when people began to question religious authority) did the physician Andreas Vesalius translate Galen's texts to Latin. The history of Christianity shows that it did everything in its power to suppress the advancement of medicine.

As for the scientists, Christians burned the priest Giordano Bruno to death for the charge of holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith. They imprisoned Galileo for his heretical ideas of heliocentric solar system, and rejected his science (by the way, The Greek thinker, Aristarchus, developed the first heliocentric theory in 270 BCE, not Copernicus as many Christians falsely believe). Isaac Newton studied occult religion in secret, something that Christian authorities, had they known, would have labeled him a heretic (Newton also studied the pseudo-scientific practice of alchemy), but his scientific work stood separate from his religious investigations. And how revealing to realize that although Newton made great advancements in science, not one of his religious investigations bore the slightest fruit, not to mention the valuable time he wasted that might have gone further to scientific advancement.

Recently, scholars found an ancient text written by Archimedes that revealed that the Greeks knew about the concept of infinity and calculus long before the advent of Christianity. Ironically a monk had used the Archimedes papers to create a prayer book. The monk washed out the Archimedes text and wrote supernatural nonsense in its place. The Archimedes text remained hidden for centuries until modern scientists found a way to retrieve the washed out text. Without religion hiding and destroying ancient scientific texts, imagine how different the world would look today if the Church had not suppressed, just calculus alone, hundreds of centuries before Isaac Newton published the idea in 1693.

To say that a few successful scientists happen to believe in the tenants of Christianity says nothing at all about religion supplying the fuel for science. To do so would constitute a grand non sequitur. Should I dare credit quantum physics to Nazism because of the many great scientists that came from fascist Germany that included Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Wernher von Braun, among many others, who founded their science with the help of Nazis? Of course not. Should I honor communism for post-modern science because of the great communist scientists such as Kovalev, Landau, Tsiolkovski, Kapitza, and many others? These men, nurtured in the communist belief system, financed by communism, and believed in its ideological foundations, produced great science. Have I made a case for communism or a connection between great science and communism? Of course not. Well, neither can one support the notion that scientists derived their science from Christianity.

Almost all the scientists and physicians that Christians love to tout practiced their science as heretics or did their science in secret. These scientists had to fight, tooth-and-claw, against Christian dogma to get their ideas accepted. You had to live as a Christian believer (pretend or not) in those days or else fear ostracism, or ridicule.

Interestingly, every one of the the scientists that Christians love to cite, lived during the Renaissance or the Age of Enlightenment when the Church began to lose its power and the populace began to wake up from its religious stupor. None of them lived during the Dark Ages.

It came from scientific and enlightenment reason that influenced religion to bend its ways to concede to science, not the other way around. The Renaissance and the period of the Enlightenment came as a result from people who rejected certain religious beliefs.

Not only the scientists but the scientific institutions that Christians love to cite also came well after the Dark Ages. The Trinity College in Cambridge didn't come into existence until 1546 and only because King Henry VIII wanted to close down the universities. Katherine Parr, the queen, intervened and convinced her husband not to close two of them but to combine them to create a new college. (Katherine Parr, by the way, held heretical and reformed ideas about religion that would have had her put to death by the Church only a few years earlier.) The British Kingdom confiscated the lands from the Church to establish the college, thus, the Trinity College only pays an indirect homage to religion in the name "Trinity" (of which Isaac Newton, by the way, did not believe in, among many other scientists).

The Vatican Observatory didn't come into existence until 1891, and not for scientific inquiry as much as for establishing a better calendar to determine the time to celebrate religious events. Today it hardly stands as the best example of astronomical observation and I suspect that its Church support comes mainly as a propaganda ploy to say in effect: "See, we support science too," when in fact, it still opposes many scientific truths, or utilities god-of-the-gaps thinking to justify only the most obvious scientific facts (such as planets, heliocentricity, etc.) The Greek, Roman, and Arabic names for the stars, planets and constellations also shows the absence of Christian influence (not too surprising when you consider that the Bible believing Christians thought the stars represented peep-holes for their god to look through).

Science never needed religion or any ideological system for its support or advancement, and the best scientific research centers today have nothing at all to do with religion. On the contrary, any faith-based system opposes any scientific inquiry that relies on evidence, free investigation, and reason. It also bears importance to reveal the fact that throughout the history of science, not one scientific formula contains the variable of god or any supernatural agent. On religion's end, it bears equal revelation to understand that religion has never uncovered a single workable fact about nature or the universe. Not one. Everything we know about the universe comes from scientific inquiry.

Scientific facts have never derived from religion, but religion has conceded to science. But even here, the Church's concessions to science have come through bitter delay and sometimes reverses its concessions. Not until 1993 did Pope John Paul II acquit Galileo, 360 years after his indictment of heresy! The Pope even conceded to the idea of evolution "as an effectively proven fact," over 130 years after Darwin's first publication of the fact. Unfortunately the present Pope does not accept evolution, so I guess for Catholics, it comes down to a belief of which pope possesses the most infallible position.

Nor did Catholicism alone stand against scientific progress. Protestant Christians like to point out that the Reformation changed Christianity for the better and they love to blame Islam for its backward scientific and political progress because it never went through a reformation as did Christianity. But the Reformation did nothing of the sort to improve Christianity or scientific advancement. Protestantism, from its very beginning, abhorred scientific reasoning. Martin Luther, its founder, condemned using reason and taught that faith alone should fill the minds of Christians. The Reformation only set Christians against Christians which resulted in hundreds of years of wars and intolerance. The only reason why Christianity appears more modern than Islam comes from the historical fact that Christianity conceded to science and reason through heretical enlightenment thinkers. Islam needs an Enlightenment, not a Reformation!

It also bears importance to realize that Christianity never accepts science on scientific facts alone but always with the condition that an invented theological explanation must accompany a scientific fact. Thus theists can only accept evolution by hypothesizing that god uses evolution as his creation method. The Big Bang theory can only earn acceptance when it accords with the belief of a Creator invented universe (although many quantum physicists today think that the Big Bang didn't serve as an absolute beginning and probably never had one). These religious excuses use God-of-the-gaps thinking which, if you think about it, has as much relevance to factual knowledge as do Tinker Bell and Captain Hook.

And who represents the best and most honorable person of charitable medical care that religionists love to point to? Mother Teresa, of course. Unfortunately once one looks closely at her brand of care-giving, the idea of proper medical care goes out the window. Mother Teresa's donated income went mostly to religious institutions, not the poor and suffering. Moreover, she wanted to keep the poor in poverty because of her faith of "Christ in the broken body," and that to come close to Jesus, the poor must suffer like Jesus. Even more damaging, her Church belief that condoms and birth control went against God, allowed the poor to get infected with the HIV virus and other sexually transmitted diseases. More people died as a result of dangerous Church beliefs than Mother Teresa could ever have hoped to save.

Unfortunately, Christian church authorities and Christian political leaders today, continue to place barriers against science. Many fundamentalist Christians reject modern biology, geology, and physics. Many deny global warming, birth control, stem cell research and other scientific advances that could save millions of people, if not the entire human race. It shouldn't surprise anyone that George W. Bush's administration which kowtows to the Religious Right has reduced scientific research in place of faith based initiatives. Many fundamentalist Christians want to eliminate Darwin's theory of evolution and replace it with theological Creationism. Some have even succeeded in using political means to change school boards across America to ban evolution from biology books and to teach Intelligent Design (an oxymoronic euphemism for Creationism) in its place.

Christian faith healers still go around the world preaching that their god can immediately cure hidden diseases, blindness, arthritis, and many other disorders (except, oddly, for the visible ailments such as compound fractures, amputations, or even a simple pimple). When modern medicine does happen to cure them, they thank god instead of the doctors who actually saved them. Devout Christians believe in miracles over modern science.

I don't know about you but when I search for a doctor to cure me, I don't want one who believes in superstitions, miracles, or divine intervention (for how could I ever know if he resorts to his faith rather than his medical training?). I want a doctor who uses the best scientific medical knowledge and that means a doctor who doesn't hold Christian or any religious beliefs. When I want to understand how nature and the universe works, I read from scientific literature, not holy scripture. Scientists reveal the workings of nature, not priests, ministers or shamans.



The graph* above represents an approximate graph of the advancement of science through time.

The Christian Dark Ages represents the only time in the history of Europe where scientific advancement not only halted but went backwards. The hole left by the Dark Ages bears the imprint of scientific intolerance. Imagine where scientific advancement would stand today if not for the scars left by Christianity.

During the Age of Enlightenment, people began to wake up. Many freethinkers and scientists rejected orthodox religion and replaced it with unitarianism, deism, or non-theistic philosophy. During the 1800s and after, scientists no longer had to fear religious persecution in any form. As never before in the history of mankind, scientists began to reject theocracy entirely. And what happened as a result of the freedom from Christian influence? Science literally exploded with new discoveries! Since the early 1900s, the majority of the world's productive scientists held no theological beliefs, and the percentage of nonbelievers continued to rise every decade.

The idea that Christianity founded modern science and medicine comes from pure arrogant myth. Christianity, by its very biblical nature, represents the antithesis of science.

[loco]

"Christian" Dark Ages?  And the Muslims were not conquering, ruling, killing and forcing people to convert during that time?

[Necrosis]

"Christian" Dark Ages?  And the Muslims were not conquering, ruling, killing and forcing people to convert during that time?

did you not read the whole article? it absolutely destroys any notion that christianity progressed science. It also shows how religion has to concede to science, like the pope accepting evolution as fact.

[Deicide]

"Christian" Dark Ages?  And the Muslims were not conquering, ruling, killing and forcing people to convert during that time?

Read the article...you are all equally guilty...

[loco]

did you not read the whole article? it absolutely destroys any notion that christianity progressed science. It also shows how religion has to concede to science, like the pope accepting evolution as fact.

I have nothing against Roman Catholic people, but I do agree that the Roman Catholic Church did, and to some degree still does today, a lot of damage.

[Deicide]

I have nothing against Roman Catholic people, but I do agree that the Roman Catholic Church did, and to some degree still does today, a lot of damage.

As did Protestants...ever hear of the Wars of Religion among other things?

[loco]

As did Protestants...ever hear of the Wars of Religion among other things?

What does that have to do with modern science and medicine?  Protestants never ruled the world and they actually helped dethrone the Roman Catholic Church.

[MCWAY]

The usual "It's Christianity's fault, blah, blah, blah"..........More atheistic foolishness from those obsessed with what they don’t believe to exist.

Did this guy just blame Mother Teresa for the spread of disease among the poor? Now, that’s rich. I suppose she basically opened the legs of the women, picked up some men, and threw them on top of the ladies, forcing them to get their freak on.

Look at the rates of STDs (AIDS, in particular) just here in the USA. Folks have been yapping about condoms and what-not for over TWO DECADES. Yet, STDs and out-of-wedlock children are at a record HIGH.

The best way to curb disease is via PREVENTION. That means, if you want to reverse the increase of STDs, then it's time to CHANGE ONE'S BEHAVIOR. It's awfully difficult to get AIDS or HPV, if you aren't casually having sex, with reckless abandon.

The rest of this long blurb is merely the usual standard left-wing gibberish about Christians being "anti-science", when nothing could be further from the truth. What many Christians oppose is the screwy notion that scientific advancement REQUIRES an abandoning of faith and bowing down to the shrine of Darwin.

A prime example is the repeated (and ridiucoulsly wrong) mantra, chanted by atheists (and other skeptics) with regards to stem cell research. Time and time again, they claim that Christians are "anti-science", when it comes to this matter. Thney foolishly forget that the only version of this research, that many Christian oppose, is embryonic stem cell research, which just happens to be the one version that has cured absolutely ZERO DISEASES. Meanwhile, adult stem cells have been used to treat and cure at least 70 different ailments (and counting).

In fact, a few weeks ago, I posted a thread about a scientist (YES, he is a Creationist) who runs a stem cell research company, looking extract stem cells from baby teeth (the company's name is BabyTooth Technologies). And, I'm sure Loco can (and probably will) bring the LOOOOOOOOOONG list of Christian scientists, who laid the foundation for modern medicine, biology, and other scientific arenas.

So, I'd hardly sweat what appears to be yet another blubber-fest, by another atheist, falsely whimpering about them mean ol' Christians have kept scientists from doing thus and so.

[loco]

Nicholas Copernicus, Blaise Pascal, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins.

[MCWAY]

Nicholas Copernicus, Blaise Pascal, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins.

Excellent timing, Loco. Add to that list, the man who runs BabyTooth Technologies, Dr. Robin Crossman.

[Deicide]

What does that have to do with modern science and medicine?  Protestants never ruled the world and they actually helped dethrone the Roman Catholic Church.

Read the article again. Luther was one of the biggest opponents of reason and rationality, prizing faith above all else. You cannot have it both ways Loco, much though you would like it.

[Deicide]

Nicholas Copernicus, Blaise Pascal, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins.

Science never needed religion or any ideological system for its support or advancement.

Reread the article. The science these guys did has nothing to do with their Christian beliefs. A guy like Polkinghorne has gone on record that faith and faith alone informs his Christianity and it has nothing to do with scientific evidence.

[loco]

Read the article again. Luther was one of the biggest opponents of reason and rationality, prizing faith above all else. You cannot have it both ways Loco, much though you would like it.

Luther never ruled the world,  he was not the Vatican, he was not the pope, nobody had to follow him.

[Deicide]

Luther never ruled the world,  he was not the Vatican, he was not the pope, nobody had to follow him.

Epic missing the point. He REJECTED rationality. That is the point and he is the role model of Protestantism!

[loco]

Epic missing the point. He REJECTED rationality. That is the point and he is the role model of Protestantism!

He's not my role model.

What Luther thought or did not think about science has nothing to do with the advancement of science around the world.   Now, the Roman Catholic church is a different story because they had the power.

[MCWAY]

He's not my role model.

What Luther thought or did not think about science has nothing to do with the advancement of science around the world.   Now, the Roman Catholic church is a different story because they had the power.

What's even more ridiculous is that from the very beginning of Creation, man was given dominion over the Earth, to subdue and explore it.

As David said, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the earth displays His handiwork".

This bone-headed notion by atheists that scientific exploration and inquire MANDATE the rejection of faith and belief in a Creator is utterly ridiculous and has been proven false more times than the law allows.

As I stated earlier, this foolish tripe is a prime example of the utter falsehood, mentioned by atheists, regarding scientific exploraiton

Unfortunately, Christian church authorities and Christian political leaders today, continue to place barriers against science. Many fundamentalist Christians reject modern biology, geology, and physics. Many deny global warming, birth control, stem cell research and other scientific advances that could save millions of people, if not the entire human race. It shouldn't surprise anyone that George W. Bush's administration which kowtows to the Religious Right has reduced scientific research in place of faith based initiatives. Many fundamentalist Christians want to eliminate Darwin's theory of evolution and replace it with theological Creationism. Some have even succeeded in using political means to change school boards across America to ban evolution from biology books and to teach Intelligent Design (an oxymoronic euphemism for Creationism) in its place.

Exactly how do Christians reject modern biology, physics, and geology, especially with a number of scientists in these arenas are Christians themselves? And, as I said earlier, with regards to the stem-cell research thing, this comment is a BLATANT LIE. Christians support all forms of stem cell research, EXCEPT ONE (the one that hasn't cure a darn thing, embryonic stem cell research). To top it all off, in this silly attempt to blast President Bush, Walker forgets that it was President Bush who actually gave FEDERAL FUNDING to stem cell research, excluding the embryonic type.

Furthermore, I've heard of NO Christians that demanded the elmination of the teaching of evolution. What the demand has been is to discuss Creation and put the evidence supporting BOTH, head to head, and let the chips fall where they may. Even "Answers In Genesis", one of the biggest Creationist groups in the world, has made it clear that it DOES NOT want to mandate Creation teaching in public school.

On the contrary, it's the atheists, who are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO confident that there is no God, that some of them want to deny college credit to students who took science classes from Christians schools. Others want to actually strip or deny qualified scientists of their Ph.Ds, becaus they believe in Creation (see Dr. Kurt Wise, for example). This seems like paranoia to me.

As stated, when I posted the words of Dr. George Wald, this issue is more about philosophy, NOT science. It was out of "philosophical neccesity" that Wald and evolutionists of his time (and perhaps of more recent times) believed in spontaneous generation, DESPITE the lack of evidence for such. For not to do so would leave them little choice but to concede that the origin of life (an issue that always arises, no matter how much atheists try to dodge it) has a supernatural cause, therefore a supernatural entity to whom they must be held accountable.

[Decker]

What's even more ridiculous is that from the very beginning of Creation, man was given dominion over the Earth, to subdue and explore it.

As David said, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the earth displays His handiwork".

This bone-headed notion by atheists that scientific exploration and inquire MANDATE the rejection of faith and belief in a Creator is utterly ridiculous and has been proven false more times than the law allows.
...

Where do faith and belief in christian concepts enter into the scientific method?  If they are rejected by atheists and that rejection is erroneous, there must be a place for those concepts in the scientific method.

Einstein had faith that the Universe was subject to rational analysis making science possible.

[MCWAY]

Where do faith and belief in christian concepts enter into the scientific method?  If they are rejected by atheists and that rejection is erroneous, there must be a place for those concepts in the scientific method.

Einstein had faith that the Universe was subject to rational analysis making science possible.

Part of the scientific method is observation and repeatibility. Scientists, both Creationists and evolutionists, deal with aspects which they have not seen and cannot reproduce in a lab.

I can no more create sentient life in six days than you can watch non-living matter become living matter (with no sentient manipulation) or watch fish evolve into non-fish creatures.

Science is simply neutral. It is the religious/philosophical beliefs of scientists that drive this debate: Those who believe there is a supernatural deity, responsible for life on Earth vs. those that do not believe such.

And, as I mentioned somewhere else, there is little difference between your belief that matter has always existed and my belief that God has always existed.

[Necrosis]

Part of the scientific method is observation and repeatibility. Scientists, both Creationists and evolutionists, deal with aspects which they have not seen and cannot reproduce in a lab.

wrong, creationism cannot observe or reproduce anything and doesnt follow the scientific method, biologists go. Geneticists etc...

I can no more create sentient life in six days than you can watch non-living matter become living matter (with no sentient manipulation) or watch fish evolve into non-fish creatures.

wrong, we have seen the evolution of new species, see my thread. Direct observable evidence supported with other sources. IE genetics,medicine, homology etc etc...

And, as I mentioned somewhere else, there is little difference between your belief that matter has always existed and my belief that God has always existed.

Dead wrong. The belief that energy/matter has always existed is supported by scientifc law that has never been falsified and doesnt complicate the question. What you are suggesting is that because life is complex god must of made it because it could not just exist. However, if you follow your logic you have to explain gods existence since he is even more complex and could not of existed by chance. You are complicating the question even further, and adding complexity, while my answer simplifies and has evidence. To think they are remotely the same is ridiculous. We have a mathematical forumla that explains energy conversion to matter, you have nothing. How does god make universes? Did he just make if from nothing? magic? etc etc... all unanswerable. Your answer is simply a cop out.

[MCWAY]

wrong, creationism cannot observe or reproduce anything and doesnt follow the scientific method, biologists go. Geneticists etc...

What are you talking about? Biologists and geneticists are SCIENTISTS (they're people). They can use the scientific method. But, there are people in these fields, who are BOTH Creationists and evolutionists. Biologists believe in Creation; biologists believe in evolutions. Same goes for geneticists.

wrong, we have seen the evolution of new species, see my thread. Direct observable evidence supported with other sources. IE genetics,medicine, homology etc etc...

That’s called “speciation”. A species of fish producing another species of fish is a FAR CRY from a fish “evolving” into a non-fish creature.

Dead wrong. The belief that energy/matter has always existed is supported by scientifc law that has never been falsified and doesnt complicate the question. What you are suggesting is that because life is complex god must of made it because it could not just exist. However, if you follow your logic you have to explain gods existence since he is even more complex and could not of existed by chance. You are complicating the question even further, and adding complexity, while my answer simplifies and has evidence. To think they are remotely the same is ridiculous. We have a mathematical forumla that explains energy conversion to matter, you have nothing. How does god make universes? Did he just make if from nothing? magic? etc etc... all unanswerable. Your answer is simply a cop out.

A cop out to what?

Your answer only emphasizes the fact that you indeed believe in something always existing, nothing more or less. Something being eternal and someone being eternal is hardly different, except in one aspect: A sentient being, higher than man, would require some sort of acknowledgement and reverence from man.

What scientific law supports is based on man's limitations. Man cannot create or destroy energy. He can only manipulate it.

As for my "having nothing", with regards to a mathemetical formula. Who developed this mathematical formula? It's been around for quite some time, yet man has only recently (relatively speaking) found it. Yet, man's lack of knowledge of such didn't preclude its non-existence. This formula requires order, precision, and accuracy, things hardly developed of itself, with no sentient guidance.

[Decker]

Part of the scientific method is observation and repeatibility. Scientists, both Creationists and evolutionists, deal with aspects which they have not seen and cannot reproduce in a lab.

That's b/c the scientific method does not require pre-ordained non-related beliefs as the price of admission.

I can no more create sentient life in six days than you can watch non-living matter become living matter (with no sentient manipulation) or watch fish evolve into non-fish creatures.

Science is simply neutral. It is the religious/philosophical beliefs of scientists that drive this debate: Those who believe there is a supernatural deity, responsible for life on Earth vs. those that do not believe such.

And, as I mentioned somewhere else, there is little difference between your belief that matter has always existed and my belief that God has always existed.

The difference being is that matter (which is just energy) does in fact exist and God does not.

[MCWAY]

That's b/c the scientific method does not require pre-ordained non-related beliefs as the price of admission.

But, those pre-ordained beliefs (whether it's for Creation or evolution) are already there, in the minds of the scientists involved. And, that method is limited by man's abilites.

The theory of evolution was not derived, because Darwin had absolutely NO idea how life began on Earth. It was developed for the specific purpose of explaining life on Earth WITHOUT a supernatural entity involved.

The difference being is that matter (which is just energy) does in fact exist and God does not.

Now, you're flip-flopping! You said earlier that "we don't know". That last statement is NOT one of uncertainty. Either you know something exists or you don't.  Make up your mind, please.

[Necrosis]

What are you talking about? Biologists and geneticists are SCIENTISTS (they're people). They can use the scientific method. But, there are people in these fields, who are BOTH Creationists and evolutionists. Biologists believe in Creation; biologists believe in evolutions. Same goes for geneticists.


That’s called “speciation”. A species of fish producing another species of fish is a FAR CRY from a fish “evolving” into a non-fish creature.


A cop out to what?

Your answer only emphasizes the fact that you indeed believe in something always existing, nothing more or less. Something being eternal and someone being eternal is hardly different, except in one aspect: A sentient being, higher than man, would require some sort of acknowledgement and reverence from man.

What scientific law supports is based on man's limitations. Man cannot create or destroy energy. He can only manipulate it.

As for my "having nothing", with regards to a mathemetical formula. Who developed this mathematical formula? It's been around for quite some time, yet man has only recently (relatively speaking) found it. Yet, man's lack of knowledge of such didn't preclude its non-existence. This formula requires order, precision, and accuracy, things hardly developed of itself, with no sentient guidance.

"What are you talking about? Biologists and geneticists are SCIENTISTS (they're people). They can use the scientific method. But, there are people in these fields, who are BOTH Creationists and evolutionists. Biologists believe in Creation; biologists believe in evolutions. Same goes for geneticists. "

scientist is a generic term for someone who is involved in science, they have different focus based on field. Creationists dont use the scientific method, this is a fact, the fact that you would dispute it makes it obvious you are immune to reason. They have a conclusion already decided, have no observable data and no indirect data like math which describes this being. They also have no explanations for why,how,when... they violate the SM in everyway.

"What scientific law supports is based on man's limitations. Man cannot create or destroy energy. He can only manipulate it."

well it appears to be based on the universes limitation, but what argument are you making here?

"A cop out to what?

Your answer only emphasizes the fact that you indeed believe in something always existing, nothing more or less. Something being eternal and someone being eternal is hardly different, except in one aspect: A sentient being, higher than man, would require some sort of acknowledgement and reverence from man."

a cop out to having to find the answer, you just suggest god did it, classic god of the gaps fallacy. I beleive in something with concrete verifiable evidence that simplifies the question and meets occams razor. You suggest an even more complex answer that we cannot comprehend.

do you deny that the answer to the question which uses god makes the question more complex? if you see complexity as needing sentient creation, then your argument fails because the supremely more complex being aka god requires an even more complex answer. Answer the question please

[MCWAY]

"What are you talking about? Biologists and geneticists are SCIENTISTS (they're people). They can use the scientific method. But, there are people in these fields, who are BOTH Creationists and evolutionists. Biologists believe in Creation; biologists believe in evolutions. Same goes for geneticists. "

scientist is a generic term for someone who is involved in science, they have different focus based on field. Creationists dont use the scientific method, this is a fact, the fact that you would dispute it makes it obvious you are immune to reason. They have a conclusion already decided, have no observable data and no indirect data like math which describes this being. They also have no explanations for why,how,when... they violate the SM in everyway.

Scientists believe in either Creation or evolution. Dr. Robin Crossman (founder of BabyTooth Technologies, a stem-cell research company) is a scientist. He believes in Creation. Does that mean he doesn't use the scientific method? You're going to imply that he has not observed data, attempted to replicate results from that data, etc.?, just because he believes God created the heavens and the earth? What are his alleged violations of the scientific methods.

"What scientific law supports is based on man's limitations. Man cannot create or destroy energy. He can only manipulate it."

well it appears to be based on the universes limitation, but what argument are you making here?

That argument would be that there's a big difference between stating that something can't be created or destroyed and saying that man cannot create or destroy something.

"A cop out to what?

Your answer only emphasizes the fact that you indeed believe in something always existing, nothing more or less. Something being eternal and someone being eternal is hardly different, except in one aspect: A sentient being, higher than man, would require some sort of acknowledgement and reverence from man."

a cop out to having to find the answer, you just suggest god did it, classic god of the gaps fallacy. I beleive in something with concrete verifiable evidence that simplifies the question and meets occams razor. You suggest an even more complex answer that we cannot comprehend.

Having to find the answer to what?

It appears to me that the issue isn't necessarily finding THE answer. It's finding an answer, other than one that you don't like, one pointing to a supernatural being. That's based on a naturalistic philosophy, not mere scientific research.

do you deny that the answer to the question which uses god makes the question more complex? if you see complexity as needing sentient creation, then your argument fails because the supremely more complex being aka god requires an even more complex answer. Answer the question please

First of all, to what "question" are you referring, how did life begin?

Your statement appears to say that, if someone says God created life on Earth, then there needs to be an explanation for God.

If that's the case, your argument fails, because an explanation for God would be no more complex than your explanation for life on Earth without a god. As I said, from where does this matter originate? You claim that it has always been, which puts us right back to what I said earlier. There is little difference between your claim of matter always existing and my claim of God always existing.

To demand that there must be an "answer" to a complex God (whom Creationists say has always existed) but there must be no such answer to matter (which evolutionists say has always existed) makes no sense.

The difference is simply philosophical. Matter requires no moral standards; matter requires no accountability for one's actions. Man wants to be held as the highest being in the world, if not the universe. Therefore, there must be no God (or other supernatural being) for such to be the case.

[Deicide]

Scientists believe in either Creation or evolution. Dr. Robin Crossman (founder of BabyTooth Technologies, a stem-cell research company) is a scientist. He believes in Creation. Does that mean he doesn't use the scientific method? You're going to imply that he has not observed data, attempted to replicate results from that data, etc.?, just because he believes God created the heavens and the earth? What are his alleged violations of the scientific methods.

That argument would be that there's a big difference between stating that something can't be created or destroyed and saying that man cannot create or destroy something.

Having to find the answer to what?

It appears to me that the issue isn't necessarily finding THE answer. It's finding an answer, other than one that you don't like, one pointing to a supernatural being. That's based on a naturalistic philosophy, not mere scientific research.

First of all, to what "question" are you referring, how did life begin?

Your statement appears to say that, if someone says God created life on Earth, then there needs to be an explanation for God.

If that's the case, your argument fails, because an explanation for God would be no more complex than your explanation for life on Earth without a god. As I said, from where does this matter originate? You claim that it has always been, which puts us right back to what I said earlier. There is little difference between your claim of matter always existing and my claim of God always existing.

To demand that there must be an "answer" to a complex God (whom Creationists say has always existed) but there must be no such answer to matter (which evolutionists say has always existed) makes no sense.

The difference is simply philosophical. Matter requires no moral standards; matter requires no accountability for one's actions. Man wants to be held as the highest being in the world, if not the universe. Therefore, there must be no God (or other supernatural being) for such to be the case.

This is purely your perception. Very few irreligious people think this way.