Evolution and an old earth. I'm not generalizing. I understand many Muslims and Christians accept evolution and an old earth.

Interbane wrote:Evolution and an old earth. I'm not generalizing. I understand many Muslims and Christians accept evolution and an old earth.

If you're not generalizing then I'd like a specific example from one of those scholarly articles you've browsed.

I'd like to read it.

ant wrote:If you're not generalizing then I'd like a specific example from one of those scholarly articles you've browsed.

I don't think you understand. What I'm referring to is the position you always defend, often with articles you link yourself. Why ask for further articles on a position you agree with? I think some of the articles I browsed were ones you supplied. Here are a couple of others. Interesting to read, if nothing else.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-his ... nd-science

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/20 ... ethod.html

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:If you're not generalizing then I'd like a specific example from one of those scholarly articles you've browsed.

I don't think you understand. What I'm referring to is the position you always defend, often with articles you link yourself. Why ask for further articles on a position you agree with? I think some of the articles I browsed were ones you supplied. Here are a couple of others. Interesting to read, if nothing else.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-his ... nd-science

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/20 ... ethod.html

I'm not familiar with reasons.org or what their exact position is.
I've asked for a specific example and you have stated you are not generalizing.
Give me a specific example from reasons.org - a scientific study - that you anticipate I would defend.

You've also indicated that I often link articles myself related to this. Give me an example of an article I linked that had to do specifically with Christian apologetics and science. At first glance I saw nothing from reasons.org that relates specifically to Christianity and it's relationship to science in history or what my personal views are on the matter.

I am going to read the realclear article. It looks interesting. Thanks for that.

I posted this topic because I thought it would interest some of you that have a very myopic, black and white, cartoonish view of the history of science. Similar to the views of Neils D Tyson (or what he intentionally promoted on COSMOS)
Also, because some of you, including yourself, have stated religion is based on blind faith and is antithetical to science.

Islam's examination of the Ptolemaic model, and its near identical Copernican model was based on sophisticated mathematics, reason, and evidence.
I could give other examples as well. I found this one to be one of the most interesting I recently learned of.

Predictably, two of you are eager to turn this into an anti-Christian crusade again.

ant wrote:Give me a specific example from reasons.org - a scientific study - that you anticipate I would defend.

That Christianity is not antithetical to science. Isn't that a position you defend? I don't think I misunderstood you to such a large degree. Or have you changed your stance?

ant wrote:Also, because some of you, including yourself, have stated religion is based on blind faith and is antithetical to science.

Religion is based on blind faith.

Religion is often antithetical to science. This is true at the same time that there are religious positions that aren't antithetical to science.

Creationism is inherently anti-science. There is no way around this. Creationism is a religious belief. It's fruitless to argue against this. I mean, you can try as you always do, but you'll fail as you always do.

Link me to a post where I defended Creationism, please.

Thanks

I read the article by Ross Pomeroy.
He's not a scholar that I'm aware of. His profile states he's a zoologist. I'm uncertain about the accuracy of his historical claims in the article. So far I have read nothing about Haytham's specific contributions
Do you disagree with anything Pomeroy has said?


You said you've browsed some scholarly articles.
I assumed they authored by historical scholars of the history of science.
Share one with me, please.

You defended creationism? I must have missed that one.

Interbane wrote:You defended creationism? I must have missed that one.

Creationism is inherently anti-science. There is no way around this. Creationism is a religious belief

.

Weren't you implying that I had when you said the above?
Or are you just yelling at your inlaws again here on BT?

I wasn't discussing creationism here, nor have I defended it, to my knowledge.

Are you walking around aimlessly on some college campus?

ant wrote:Weren't you implying that I had when you said the above?

No, I most certainly wasn't. As I said, you didn't understand me. Perhaps my post lacked clarity. I'd be happy to clarify.

ant wrote:You said you've browsed some scholarly articles.
I assumed they authored by historical scholars of the history of science.
Share one with me, please.

You know what, I was completely mistaken. I looked back at the articles I read, and the two I shared with you, and none of them are scholarly. I don't know what I was thinking. Apparently, no scholar wants to defend the position that Christianity gave birth to science. I guess it's just a stupid idea, right?