Resolved; Christianity was a positive influence in the development of modern science

I will now present my opening arguments only. Pre) Relationships in terms of statistics Relationships are profound in statistics, and serve a basis for making inferences on observations. "(in statistics) a relationship between variables that may be negative (inverse), positive, or curvilinear. Correlation is measured and expressed by using numeric scales." [1] In other words, if as I age, I grow taller, there is a positive correlation or relationship between my age and my height. In statistics, there is a difference between causation and relationship. A can have a relationship with B, but A may not cause B. For example, retirement would have a relationship with memory loss, however obviously retirement is not the cause of this. In general, if a relationship also implies causation or if A has more of a direct impact on B than say C does, it is generally considered that A has a stronger relationship. Hence, I will be showing not only a negative relationship, but that my relationship is stronger than the Pros'. 1) The negative relationship between Christianity and the development of science It is often the method of the Pro to idolise certain prominent figures in science who happen to be Christian. Not only is this a weak relationship, but it is also cherry picking. To show that there is a true positive relationship, you must consider all Christians over the entire development of science. In an address from Pope Benedict XVI in 2006, a prominent spokesperson for Christianity, he stated that "Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based." [2] However spiritual influence "structures of nature" do not have a place in science as science can already explain these structures. He also stated that condoms were not the solution to combating AIDS. [3] This is a direct contradiction of scientific research, and as a spokes person for Christianity in both situations, he influenced a negative stance towards science. The presence of education brought to society through Christianity is another major element of this negative relationship. Throughout history, the Church was often responsible for education, teaching little children the words of the Bible. This included concepts such as creationism, disease being caused by evil spirits and other supernatural explanations for scientific facts. To emphasise this, a museum exists that personifies these ideas. [4] With this sort of influence on the Christian population, comprising of a lenient figure of 1.3 billion followers[5], it is evident there is a negative relationship between Christianity and the development of science. 2) Christianity follows on from scientific development Conveniently, not a single scientific fact in recorded history has been found through any direct practice of Christianity(Bible, praying etc). However, it is said the Bible is consistent with scientific facts. How can these two contradictory statements both be true? There are two ways they can be true: Of the billions of people who have been exposed to Christianity, not a single one found scientific facts through religion The interpretation of Christianity changed as science developed The second is more likely, and can be seen throughout history. In a paper, it was stated that development was "obscured" and that it was only revealed late twentieth century, causing many theologians to abandon traditional doctrine. [6] This lined up nicely with the scientific theories that preceded this change of thought. Another example is Galileo. The church didn't agree with heliocentrism, and specifically Cardinal Bellarmine prevented him from realising it as a physical possibility. [7] Yet some five hundred years later, it is common scientific knowledge and it aligns with Christian teachings. To elaborate further, there are various fundamentalist stories in the Bible, such as Adam and Eve, Mary's virgin birth, the great flood, Noah's Ark and many other contradictions to science. [8] These were all prominent beliefs in the past, and were firmly planted in Christian teachings. However, as science proved each of these beliefs incorrect, the interpretation of these turned from fact into metaphor. If the ideals and beliefs of the very core of Christianity were changed in response to science, how can we claim that a positive relationship exists? Clearly the development of science occurred before Christianity had anything to do with it. 3) General examples of a negative relationship The Bubonic Plague was a disease which was prominent in the 15th century, killing two thirds of human beings it infected.[9] The doctors practice at the time involved methods such as moving the infected away from unsanitary conditions, which provided benefits to the patients. However, followers of Christianity held the belief that it was caused by Gods wraith and that people were "infected with evil". As a prevention, they carved a symbol of the cross on the front door of the infected.[10] This ignorance to treating the disease caused approximately 25 million deaths[11] and was extremely negative on the development of science towards more effective treatments for disease. The other example is Creationism. In our modern day, creationism is a diminishing idea which contrasts all scientific evidence present. When Darwin raised his idea of "Natural Selection", there was knock back from the Christian community, which is a clear sign of a negative relation to the development of science. As we know today, natural selection is an integral theory to our understanding of evolution. However, creationism and the stories of the Bible are still taught at Sunday schools, public/private schools and in churches. How does this assist the development of science? Summary To summarise, I raised three valid points that show a negative relationship between Christianity and the development of science. There is a difference between a weak and strong relationship, with the positive relationship between Christianity and science an example of a weak one, whereas, due to the population of Christians in society, the negative relationship is a strong one. I also demonstrated that Christianity merely followed on from development of science, consequently making it impossible for Christianity to have a direct relationship. Finally, I presented examples throughout history which validate this negative relationship. In conclusion, there has been no tangible scientific development that occurred directly as a consequence of the ideals and teachings of Christianity. Coupled with the beliefs imbued on a majority of Christian society, there is a general negative relationship between Christianity and the development of science. As Albert Einstein once said: "God doesn't play dice with the world"[12]. How wrong he was. References (1) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...(2) http://www.vatican.va...(3) http://www.abc.net.au...(4) http://creationmuseum.org...(5) http://www.nationmaster.com...(6) KRETZMANN, NORMAN (01/09/1997). "Creation without Creationism". Midwest studies in philosophy , 21 (1), p. 118.(7) Galileo: Decisive Innovator, Michael Sharratt, p126-31(8) http://christianity.about.com...(9) http://en.wikipedia.org...(10) ”How a mysterious disease laid low Europe’s masses” by Charles L. Mee jr. Smithsonian, pages 66-78.(11) "Distinct Clones of Yersinia pestis Caused the Black Death". PLoS Pathogens 6 (10): e1001134.(12) Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man, William Hermanns; Albert Einstein