[b_sharp]

"I'm not attempting to marry the two - religion and science. How you get to that is amazing. It is nowhere proferred as the case. Yet, it is the case that largely Christian minds are responsible for the mere existance of Science today and saw it thrive to get here. Christians had and have no problem with science. As I noted, calling into question methods or conclusions does not put science at a whole at risk. It may put method or conclusion at risk - that's about it. If a method or conclusion is so shoddy as to warrant scuttling, whatever rests upon it is no more worthy. A faulty foundation is doom for a home, a logical construct or an ideology. More simply stated, false premises do not a truth make.

It sounds very much like you are trying to say that a 'Christian' foundation is necessary to give science stability. What I am saying is that the stability of science is based on the methodology and that the religious belief of those that developed the methodology is strictly incidental.

If you are not trying to link science to religion, why do you bother to bring up the putative religion of those that contributed to the development of science? This is no different than claiming science was started by people who consistently put their left shoe on before their right shoe, or by men who dressed to the left.

[Havoc]

I'm not saying that at all, though I would offer that if it were an actual Christian foundation, it couldn't but help in some fashion. The nature of Christians, whether they accomplish it or not, is to attempt to be perfect in their morality. When you can rely on that being the case, you can generally rely upon results. But I would underscore Christian, not an "ism". Ism's are philosophical groups using Christianity by and large. As such, I can't speak for them.

The argument I've made is simple, read your history. Christians founded the branches and are responsible for their existance and much of the major discoveries. So trying to say Christians would destroy science is about the most moronic thing you could proffer.

As for the methodology, I would almost agree. Methodology is only as good as the morality putting it to use. If you have someone affecting methodology that has no moral compunction about say, oh, lying or deception... obviously, precision really becomes a moot point. So, there is something to be said for highly moral, upstanding and trustworthy people being in any position, scientific fields are no exception. But you're off on a tangent I never went to.

I merely rebutted the assanine notion that Christianity is out to destroy science. It just doesn't pass the sniff test or the bs-ometer and sounds like stark-raving lunacy no different than the liberal lunacy going on amongst dim circles right now. "The religious right will get you.."
Boo.

[grey_whiskers]

If you are not trying to link science to religion, why do you bother to bring up the putative religion of those that contributed to the development of science? This is no different than claiming science was started by people who consistently put their left shoe on before their right shoe, or by men who dressed to the left.

It is different insofar as certain religious beliefs imbued people with the expectation of discoverable rules underlying the universe, and the impetus to discover them.

Putting on shoes in a different order does not inform your philosophical expectations (various pro athletes observing rituals before "the big game" notwithstanding).

Cheers!