Explain then, why most every major university and college in North America were started by the Christian Church. Education developped out of the Church, not from the secular establishment. Many of these institutions have since broke off any affiliation with the various denominations that began them, but the base was there in almost all cases (certainly for most schools begun prior to the last century).
Education did not develop out of the Church. Secular education existed in ancient Rome and Greece and was systematically oppressed by the Church. The Christian emperor Justinian closed the last Greek philosophy school around 400 BCE because they taught secular ideas. The only ones allowed to read and write were nobles and monks, priests, and other church figures. How convenient that only they could interpret the scriptures for the masses.

When Charlemagne set up a school in 789, he also forced the bishops and monks to open other schools. But as soon as he died, the bishops and monks closed them. As a result, most of Christian Europe was illiterate by the year 1100. And we all know how powerful the Church was in the Dark and Middle Ages, and that power was directly related to the lack of education and high rates of illiteracy among the populace.

You don't think the chief motive for the RCC founding insititutes of higher learning was to engage the elite and advance their theology? The Jesuits always had as their number one mission the conversion of non-Catholic Christians to Catholicism. Faith was always part of those early learning curriculums, and one wonders how "liberal" their studies of the humanities and sciences actually were. Lest we forget, nuns and Jesuit priests were still beating kids with sticks as recently as 25-30 years ago.

So we started with secular schools, and now thankfully we are back to secular schools...for the most part.

Ok, seriously, Tom. Are you not paying attention? All of that which you posted was at the hands of the RCC. They may have chosen to claim the one and only right to the proclamation and spread of the gospel, but that in no way means that Christianity itself was responsible for the problems that YOU see.

It was the Protestant churches that opened the bulk of what would go on to become the preeminent educational facilities of the world.

You do understand that the Protestant churches are NOT Catholic right?

Not fully on topic, but Protestant Christianity is also one of the greatest supporters of the separation of church and state. Probably due to the fact that Protestants were/are so aware of how out of check the power of the Catholic Church had become and to a great extent, still is.

That's not entirely correct, especially in the US and especially in the so-called "Bible belt" where the Christian fundamentalists, mainly Protestant born-again Christians and Southern Baptists, are the strongest supporters of the INTEGRATION of church and state. Also, the Republican Party's agenda has been strongly controlled by the so-called "Moral Majority" of said group since the early 80s.

Topic: Creationism is based on faith. Evolution is based on empirical facts. I tend to go with what others have "proven". But then again, I'm as lapse a Catholic as they come. ;)

You do understand that the Protestant churches are NOT Catholic right?
Protestantism didn't come into play until the 1500's. I was addressing oppression of education, and as it stands, historically the RCC (which is a major branch of Christianity, by the way) has been involved in that...along with a few other unsavoury things we won't discuss now.

I'm not sure if I follow the point -- are we trying to establish the legitimacy of religious belief based on the positive contributions to society that some religious institutions have made? If that logic works, we should also be able to cancel that validation based on the negative contributions.

Explain then, why most every major university and college in North America were started by the Christian Church.Perhaps the priests just liked to hang around with young men?

Well to pull this topic back on track I have added an article which seems appropriate and of local interest.

Evangelical schools ordered to teach Darwin (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c5715990-a9eb-45f2-9c66-26d3ea3c56fa&k=4546)

OTTAWA - The Quebec Ministry of Education has told unlicensed Christian evangelical schools that they must teach Darwin's theory of evolution and sex education or close their doors after a school board in the Outaouais region complained the provincial curriculum was not being followed.

"Quebec children are legally required to follow the provincial curriculum ... but these evangelical schools teach their own courses on creationism and sexuality that don't follow the Quebec curriculum," said Pierre Daoust, director-general of the Commission Scolaire au Coeur-des-Vallees in Thurso, Que.

And these Evangelical schools in Quebec just happen to be Protestant institutions.

Beyond that, the only other religion in the world that has a very nasty deserved reputation for oppression and anti-science behaviour is Islam.

This is also not correct considering that while Europe was in the Dark Ages, it was the Muslims in the Middle East and the Moors in Spain that introduced some of the greatest contributions in all fields of science and mathematics.

The important contributions made by Islamic scholars can be seen in many words still in use today: alkali, algebra, alchemy, alcohol, Aldebaran, Altair, Algol, alembic, algorithm, almanac, Almagest, through to zenith and zero.

So please, can we stop with the Islam-bashing and Roman Catholic-bashing?

This is also not correct considering that while Europe was in the Dark Ages, it was the Muslims in the Middle East and the Moors in Spain that introduced some of the greatest contributions in all fields of science and mathematics.

But, remember, Islam was not instituted in broad geographic range until most likely near the 700 - 800 AD era as the Koran was not given to The Prophet until 570 AD. In that era, it takes time for something like this to spread.

The important contributions made by Islamic scholars can be seen in many words still in use today: alkali, algebra, alchemy, alcohol, Aldebaran, Altair, Algol, alembic, algorithm, almanac, Almagest, through to zenith and zero.

Interesting that these people either only had their name attached to the thing or subject or that they were far more likely to be Persian or Arabic first and Islamic second or perhaps not even Islamic at all.

And yes, I quickly researched each of the terms and pulled their geneology. Most were pre-Islam or right during the initial spreading of Islam and were not necessarily influenced by Islam in any way. After the wide spread of Islam, there is a sharp and marked decline, if not abcense, of any further Persian/Arabic scientific contribution.

So please, can we stop with the Islam-bashing and Roman Catholic-bashing?

I am not bashing. I am merely pointing out that these two Religions are far more historically guilty/predisposed to attempt to control the flow of information and the freedoms of science than any other in the world. Tom is attempting to place that label on Christianity as a whole and I am rebutting. If the topic is getting too sensitive, then perhaps it needs to be outlawed here by the admins or you need to not read it if you fear you be insulted.

And these Evangelical schools in Quebec just happen to be Protestant institutions.

Read it how you may, but it is not the missing link showing that it was Protestants that have tried to quash science over the last 1500 years.

I will say that I do not support that kind of teaching ideology. I believe that we should be taught as much as possible, label what is concrete science as such and label the rest as appropriate. I am even more than willing to accept the fact that if the idea of creationism if to be taught in public schools that it falls under religious studies or mysticism and not science.

What I again state is that I am against calling "evolution" (As the meaning is understood in the mainstream) FACT in the public school system. It is bad enough that most school books are woefully out of date/step with the pace of current scientific and mathematical discovery, but to add a theory in as absolute fact prematurely, that is just adding insult to injury.

And I think that it has been stated before(Here or elsewhere), but the funny thing is that if the "Origin of the Species" is ever fully understood and explained by science, mine and many others faith will not be undermined. In the other direction, those that do not believe in creationism seem to be threatend in the most extreme way of the possibility of creationists being right or at least, not entirely wrong.

If the topic is getting too sensitive, then perhaps it needs to be outlawed here by the admins or you need to not read it if you fear you be insulted.

I am not feeling insulted at all, as I stated, I am as lapse a Catholic as they come. I am, however, as you have done, rebutting your statements as well. Broad generalizations such as yours that Roman Catholicism and Islam are oppressive to the spreading of scientific knowledge, and that the Protestant Church was the only bulwark against outdated medieval thinking are just that, broad generalizations.

Interesting that these people either only had their name attached to the thing or subject or that they were far more likely to be Persian or Arabic first and Islamic second or perhaps not even Islamic at all.

These people? Meaning the origin of the word algebra, and algorithm: Algebra is a branch of mathematics concerning the study of structure, relation and quantity. The name is derived from the treatise written by the Persian mathematician Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Kwārizmī titled Al-Kitab al-Jabr wa-l-Muqabala (meaning "The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing"), which provided symbolic operations for the systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations. Consequently he is considered to be the father of algebra, a title he shares with Diophantus. The word algebra is derived from al-jabr, one of the two operations used to solve quadratic equations, as described in his book. Algoritmi de numero Indorum, the Latin translation of his other major work on the Indian numerals, introduced the positional number system and the number zero to the Western world in the 12th century. The words algorism and algorithm stem from Algoritmi, the Latinization of his name. His name is also the origin of the Spanish word guarismo, meaning digit.

You seem to want to ignore the vibrant scientific activity in the Islamic world during the period 750-1200; consequently, some Muslims prefer to call this period the Islamic Golden Age.

Science was encouraged by the Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad and they established the "House of Wisdom", an academy of science where they gathered important Sanskrit and Greek manuscripts and paid scholars to study and translate them. Some of these manuscripts were thus saved for humanity only through the Arabic medium.


Sorry to everyone else for hijacking this thread.

Topic: Evolution, to me, is fact. Creationism, to me, is fiction. So is the notion of a higher power such as a deity or deities who have representatives on our planet telling us they he/she/they love me, but I better not stray from their path....or else.

Topic: Evolution, to me, is fact.

No. Specifically, you accept it because it makes sense to you or it is aceptable to you. You then choose to accept it as fact. If it was indeed FACT, then you would be here with "Apples hitting me on the head" levels of PROOF and I would be here eating crow.

Creationism, to me, is fiction.

This is because it does not make sense to you and you refuse to accept it. This is well within your right of free agency.

So is the notion of a higher power such as a deity or deities who have representatives on our planet telling us they he/she/they love me, but I better not stray from their path....or else.

Same thing goes for this, does not compute, ergo, do not accept.

In the other direction, those that do not believe in creationism seem to be threatend in the most extreme way of the possibility of creationists being right or at least, not entirely wrong.
Oh c'mon...if you are referring to the 7-day Biblical account, no thinking person is threatened in the least by such a notion.

"Same thing goes for this, does not compute, ergo, do not accept."

Right! And you feel the need to question what I believe....why? As I stated, these are the things I BELIEVE, that is why I wrote "to me". I have not questioned your right to believe in creationism, I'm just stating what I believe, which is, of course, the topic of this thread.

One last ditch attempt to explain why I have no respect for creationist theory, then I'll try to stay away from this thread.

To me, it seems likely that the early Bible stories were made up to try and explain how things came to be. That's what we did before we had science. We had legends, myths, and stories as a way to cope with the unknown. All cultures had them, and they spread as people moved around, intermingled, were conquered, etc.

If it wasn't for Constantine converting the entire Roman empire, we would likely have something else other than Christianity. Why do we no longer worship Zeus, Pisces, Ra, Apollo, or any of the other old gods? Are they not real? They certainly were to the people who worshipped them at the time. But they gradually passed into history as people moved on to other things, and this God will eventually do the same.

The only way a god can exist is if you believe he does; once you stop, the god dies. There is absolutely no difference between Allah, the Christian God, Vishnu, and all the other gods who have passed into memory except for the fact people still believe in them. Creationism is just an early myth attached to a God who's only proof of existence is in consensus of belief.

Evolution, on the other hand, has demonstrable evidence. It has centuries of scientific thought and theory behind it. It makes sense to those who approach the world with a need to understand how things work. Science might not have all the answers to the important questions, but it is definitely working harder to find them.

Broad generalizations such as yours that Roman Catholicism and Islam are oppressive to the spreading of scientific knowledge, and that the Protestant Church was the only bulwark against outdated medieval thinking are just that, broad generalizations.

So who persecuted everyone (Notably Galileo and Copernicus) in Europe from the 1100s to the 1600s in regards to scientific discoveries that were at odds with the RCC? the Lutherans???

Where are all of the Islamic scientific developments after the 1200s???

How can it be a generalization if it is a legitamate fact? Only once the voice of science was loud enough to no longer be silenced by the Vatican, did it start to support science and only modestly at first.

In the other direction, those that do not believe in creationism seem to be threatend in the most extreme way of the possibility of creationists being right or at least, not entirely wrong.

How do you explain the Scopes Monkey Trial, the prosecution of a teacher who dared to teach evolution in class? Seems as though it's the religious who are most scared of their beliefs being proven wrong moreso than the evolutionists.

So who persecuted everyone (Notably Galileo and Copernicus) in Europe from the 1100s to the 1600s in regards to scientific discoveries that were at odds with the RCC? the Lutherans???

Where are all of the Islamic scientific developments after the 1200s???

How can it be a generalization if it is a legitamate fact? Only once the voice of science was loud enough to no longer be silenced by the Vatican, did it start to support science and only modestly at first.

The persecution of Galileo was, of course, the RCC. I am not disputing it. So please stop being condescending. We are exchanging points here.

Again, I am not at all stating that the RCC and Islam were not repressive of scientific though. They were, undeniably. But to continually condemn them when Protestantism is equally guilty of medieval thinking is just silly, especially when Christian fundamentalists propose a literal interpretation of the Bible.

As for the decline of Islamic science, it was not due to some religious close-mindedness stating that science is bad because Allah says so, but rather in the eleventh century muslim science and the numbers of scientists started to decline. It was a gradual process due to a number of reasons. After the thirteenth century they would still produce occasional scientists but they were the exception, not the rule. One reason for the scientific decline can be traced back to the tenth century when the orthodox school of Ash'ari challenged the more rational school of Mu'tazili theology, or even earlier when caliph Al-Mutawakkil (847-861) started to suppress the Mu'tazili theology. The orthodox muslims fought the shia muslims and other muslim branches, as well as several invaders(mongols, crusaders etc) on the islamic lands between 1000 – 1300. In the end the sunni orthodox were victorious and the more strict Ash'ari school replaced Mu'tazili thoughts in the islamic lands. That replacement and numerous wars and conflicts created a climate which made islamic science less successful than before.

With the fall of Muslim Spain in 1492, scientific and technological initiative generally passed to Christian Europe and led to what we now call the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The fiqh of Islamic Law froze more or less along classical/medieval lines, and no longer encouraged science.

Islamic science stagnated and declined, but to say it never happenned or Islamic contributions to science were minimal and dubious is downright wrong.

And BTW, Copernicus was never persecuted by the RCC. In fact, the Catholic Bishops of Capua sponsored his work and he was buried in Frombork Cathedral. Copernicus was more in fear of what other scientists would think of his work since he was able to precisely calculate and observe the heliocentricity of the solar system.

but to say it never happenned or Islamic contributions to science were minimal and dubious is downright wrong.

Boy, there are a few around today that have been putting words in my mouth.

I NEVER stated or implied this.