I know, OTOH I've given you plenty of examples
Not really. I recall you simply stating your opinion and making a claim.
and then asked for some of yours < "ONE example. " > to which I got a non reply??
I don't recall you asking me for an example. In fact, I'm not sure what it is you might have wanted an example of from me.
Would you like me to talk about the bogus peppered moth study thats still in textbooks?
How about the Haeckel's distorted drawings of embryos that have only been removed from textbooks recently? Or his recapitulation theory, also once in textbooks.
Would you like me to ask why militant atheist and non-scientist Michael Shermer writes a column in Scientific American?
Or why another non-scientist, Daniel Dennett, was a key figure at the 2005 World Summit on Evolution?
Why the spokesmen for science mount crusades against intelligent design but gladly work hand in hand with the New Atheists like Dennett, Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitchens, only one of whom even has a science background?
How about the bogus and debunked histories of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, who made up the whole war of religion and science idea? Like many, you are likely to have been mislead by bogus historical ideas that were made up a little more than a century ago:
Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was first based is considered to be inaccurate. Stephen Jay Gould writes: "White’s and Draper’s accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and utilize the same myths to support their narrative".[11] Colin Russell, in a summary of the historiography of the thesis, says that "Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship”.[12]
Regarding the model in itself, subsequent historical research indicates that religion has a much more complex and close relationship with science than the conflict thesis acknowledges. As is expressed by Gary Ferngren in his historical volume Science & Religion:
While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.[13]
Today historians acknowledge that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy, were explicitly driven by religious ideas.[14] Religious organizations figure prominently in the broader histories of many sciences, with many of the scientific minds until the professionalization of scientific enterprise (in the 19th century) being clergy and other religious thinkers.[15] Even the most prominent examples of conflict, such as the Galileo affair and the Scopes trial, were not purely instances of conflict between science and religion; personal and political factors also weighed in the development of each.[16]
en.wikipedia.org
Do you believe everyone once believed in a flat earth? Do you believe Christians opposed the use of pain medication in child birth? I could go on and on. |
