Replies

You need to brush up on your science, history and understanding of Christianity.

First of all, no “true” scientist calls a scientific theory such as evolution, the “truth”. In science there are facts, and there are theories. Evolutionists have a hard time telling them apart.

And by allowing for evolution to be a theory I am being generous, as the broad generalization of common descent is not scientific. While many aspects of evolution are testable, the overall premise that evolution is THE one and only explanation for the variety of species is untestable (i.e. not falsifiable) and unscientific. (I do accept that a more limited scope of evolution is observable in real time and is an essential part of biology.)

Secondly, a brief reading of church history from readily available early church sources, such as Irenaeus, easily refutes the vitriolic attack of those who blame “The Church” for the unscientific and illogical and unbiblical views and practices of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. While a dominant faction of heretics did persecute what they considered heretics who were scientists; the same persecuted even much more severely those who held the true faith and teaching of Christ, which you now indict as being guilty.

True Christianity is no more guilty of persecuting science than science is guilty of it.

True Christianity was the victim - right alongside science, reason and basic moral decency.

You can easily prove to yourself my view is not made up. The very scriptures that show the teachings of Christ contradicted the practices of this sad era of Christendom were safeguarded (and suppressed) by the very culprits of this evil.

To lay charge to Christians for this monstrous evil is far, far worse than telling a rape victim she (or he) is to blame.

By doing so, those who make these charges actually side with the evil beast that made rivers of blood flow from true martyrs of Christ. Do your homework before making slanderous accusations.

It is as informed of Christianity as someone claiming U.S. presidents are known to be bank robbers because he saw a Keanu Reeves movies in which Nixon robbed a bank.

Back to science. Darwin’s hypothesis was molded by a philosophic choice which rejected the reliable and authoritative revelation of scripture. All science requires philosophic choice to inform hypothesis selection. What makes one hypothesis more interesting and worth pursuing to a scientist than another? In a word, philosophy.

If Darwin had accepted the limitation proscribed in scripture that God made various “kinds” of animals to reproduce after their kind. He might have begun his quest seeking a more informed opinion of what a kind is. He could have still made as great or greater contribution to science without ignoring the record of creation.

Scoffers will quickly mock such claims, but I offer objective evidence:

Luis Pasteur was a contemporary of Darwin, and a greater scientist. He made more valuable contributions to biology and medicine. He began one of his quests with the scriptural premise I just cited.

I am not making this up. It is historical fact.