I was going to leave this alone, due to your requests to stay on topic, but you drag us out into the weeds just as often as I do. I'll try to keep it brief.
Before Christianity, the Western world had the mindset that the world was governed and ruled by the whims of the gods. Christianity offered the mindset that the world was created to operate in an ordered way, by an ordered God. It was because of Christian doctrine that people got the idea that they could study, that there were natural laws to find, that they would be repeatable...
I have to disagree strongly with you there. Scientific pursuits have been documented in the earliest of writings, and there's no reason to believe they weren't passed through oral tradition before that. Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians certainly studied math and astronomy extensively. Ancient Greeks likewise devoted much effort to questions of order in the natural world. Much of that scholarship was adopted and expanded by the Arab (Islamic) world while Europe (Christian) was mired in the Dark Ages.
Europe only emerged after a rediscovery of the classic studies and newfound communication with Arab and Eastern cultures. Religious Universities and Christian Crusades did facilitate this process, but to suggest that Christianity is the source of the scientific process is absurd. Beyond the Western world, there are also great and long scientific traditions in many other non-Christian areas, such as China, India, and the Americas, to name just a few.
The philosophical mindset of the majority of academia changed. Naturalism became the filter of choice.
That still doesn't answer the "why?" question. If ID is correct and forms the bedrock of reality, why would it be abandoned in favor of a less correct viewpoint?
We do? What do we KNOW about the beginning of the Universe? Please, tell me what you KNOW, dogg.
Well, for one thing, I'll tell you that I KNOW I didn't say anything about the beginning of the universe. I mentioned Newton's writings on the beginning of the solar system. I know that we have working theories of solar system formation and function that don't require direct supernatural intervention. I know that we have observed the entire gamut of stages of solar system life cycles that confirm those theories.
But, wait... I thought you KNEW...
It sounds like we don't even need science anymore. Cool! We KNOW...
I said we "know better." It's a turn of phrase. It does not mean we KNOW the answers. My paraphrase of Newton and Behe was that "god must be directly responsible." "Knowing better" means that we understand there are other explanations that happen to be more likely and useful.
Forgive me if I don't see the relevancy of your Bible quotes. No scientist claims to be able to control nature as a god. Is it an offense against god to study the natural world and devise useful concepts about it? If we invoke his name in every experiment and add "amen" to every hypothesis, will that make them more useful?
I was going to leave this
I was going to leave this alone, due to your requests to stay on topic, but you drag us out into the weeds just as often as I do. I'll try to keep it brief.
Before Christianity, the Western world had the mindset that the world was governed and ruled by the whims of the gods. Christianity offered the mindset that the world was created to operate in an ordered way, by an ordered God. It was because of Christian doctrine that people got the idea that they could study, that there were natural laws to find, that they would be repeatable...
I have to disagree strongly with you there. Scientific pursuits have been documented in the earliest of writings, and there's no reason to believe they weren't passed through oral tradition before that. Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians certainly studied math and astronomy extensively. Ancient Greeks likewise devoted much effort to questions of order in the natural world. Much of that scholarship was adopted and expanded by the Arab (Islamic) world while Europe (Christian) was mired in the Dark Ages.
Europe only emerged after a rediscovery of the classic studies and newfound communication with Arab and Eastern cultures. Religious Universities and Christian Crusades did facilitate this process, but to suggest that Christianity is the source of the scientific process is absurd. Beyond the Western world, there are also great and long scientific traditions in many other non-Christian areas, such as China, India, and the Americas, to name just a few.
The philosophical mindset of the majority of academia changed. Naturalism became the filter of choice.
That still doesn't answer the "why?" question. If ID is correct and forms the bedrock of reality, why would it be abandoned in favor of a less correct viewpoint?
We do? What do we KNOW about the beginning of the Universe? Please, tell me what you KNOW, dogg.
Well, for one thing, I'll tell you that I KNOW I didn't say anything about the beginning of the universe. I mentioned Newton's writings on the beginning of the solar system. I know that we have working theories of solar system formation and function that don't require direct supernatural intervention. I know that we have observed the entire gamut of stages of solar system life cycles that confirm those theories.
But, wait... I thought you KNEW...
It sounds like we don't even need science anymore. Cool! We KNOW...
I said we "know better." It's a turn of phrase. It does not mean we KNOW the answers. My paraphrase of Newton and Behe was that "god must be directly responsible." "Knowing better" means that we understand there are other explanations that happen to be more likely and useful.
Forgive me if I don't see the relevancy of your Bible quotes. No scientist claims to be able to control nature as a god. Is it an offense against god to study the natural world and devise useful concepts about it? If we invoke his name in every experiment and add "amen" to every hypothesis, will that make them more useful?