[Quark2005]

I see what youre saying ... everything before 1859 wasnt real science ...

That's not what I said. The foundations of chemistry, classical physics and geology were all laid before this time. All I'm saying is that science has no power beyond the limits of the naturalistic assumption. Prior to 1859 (or thereabouts) science made immense progress by explaining natural phenemona. Religion has deeply inspired science, but good scientific explanations have never been dependent on the supernatural. Religion has admittedly had an incalcuable influence on science (more good than bad, I believe). Newton was a deeply religious man, but his useful donation to science was his Laws of Motion & Gravitation, not his religious faith (important as this was to his inspiration).

I don't personally see why people see such a conflict between religion and Darwinian evolution. A natural explanation of life's origin does not preclude God's involvement, if you believe natural laws are a consequence of God's will.

[Chaguito]

I don't personally see why people see such a conflict between religion and Darwinian evolution.

It's the scientism that creates the conflict (along with perhaps a dash of opportunism on the part of some religious folk). Naturalism is much more that simply positing "the uniformity of natural causes." Most Christians who do science accept that as the fundamental faith statement that makes science possible. But the presupposition of naturalism, once accepted, tend to lead the investigator to insist that the discovered results cannot point to a supernatural creator, as if this would spell the end of "science". This changes the whole nature of the discipline from that "before 1859". (Obviously, I believe that good science leads toward the identity of the Creator.)

BTW your post #203 makes your position a lot clearer.