Aristotle was the first person to systematize the laws of logic and that is very important to modern science, but he never conducted any experiments.
Neither did Hawking as far as far as I know, but he was a stellar modern scientist. So you really cannot disqualify Aristotle as a scientist that way.
Well maybe you are right. Maybe Christianity is the basis of science or rather the Christian worldview is the basis of science because it is the only religion that taught that there is an objective reality that operates according to natural laws.
You failed to demonstrate that claim.
I thought you could understand them. I guess I was wrong.
Please try to make what you say clear. I happen to like clarity. It's part of my scientific thinking.
You are, because I have been an evangelical Christian for over 40 years and I have never met one that was opposed to science because of their faith. Of course, there are many that do not believe in evolutionary theory.
Which is opposition to science rooted in Christian faith!
But I have never met one that denied non-theoretical science. Theoretical science can be influenced by a persons philosophy or political views.
Creationists deny fossil evidence for evolution, so you are wrong here.
Even if some massively complex systems cannot be predicted by limited beings like us does not mean that they are not orderly and intelligible.
I already corrected you on this issue.
Yes, free will minds can create disorder, but so far from what we know about the universe God has not done that.
But as a "free will mind" He can do whatever He chooses including making the world unpredictable and hence disorderly. So any apparent order in the cosmos cannot be said to be evidence for such a God. So your logic amounts to:
If A then B and if A then
not B.
That's not valid logic.
No, you quoted Jesus who is a first century rabbi whom historians know often used hyperbole. Most of the Bible is not a first century rabbi speaking. So most of the Bible is not hyperbole. The Bible is made up of many different forms of literature, to correctly understand the Bible or any text, you have to know what type of literature it is.
But it is neither fair nor honest to interpret the Bible in such a way as to force it to be in accord with your preconceived notion that it is inerrant.
Actually, there have been a few cases where a psychologist did think the person may have been possessed by a demon.
Maybe, but such a case of demonic possession has never been proved by science. The concept of demonic possession is based in the myth and folklore of primitive, superstitious, and prescientific people. To claim cases of demonic possession is not in accord with modern science.
Actually if the suspension of a natural law is done for a logical reason, then it is not disorder.
Then you cannot claim that natural law is evidence for God if He can suspend it at will! Here's your logic:
If God then order, and if God then disorder.
As I stated above, more than 99.9% of the time God does not intervene supernaturally. In order for Him to destroy evil forever, the universe must be primarily based on natural law and have free will beings. Someone driving the other car may have freely chosen to drink and drive.
So God wants people to be able to get drunk and run people over while driving. Don't you see how ridiculous that is? I think it's sensible to disallow drunk driving because the freedom to drive drunk is less important than people's safety.
Here's your logic:
The freedom to do evil is more important than freedom
from evil.
No, they usually occur as the result of natural laws unless the driver freely chooses to do something with their car.
Since auto accidents are for the most part unpredictable, I would define them as "disorder."
Beginning in the mid 4th century the church leadership began to become corrupt because it became part of the government and started to withhold the Bible from the laity. So that they did not know that they could learn from nature about God. But around the Reformation when the protestants started getting the Bible out to the people then people became more interested in learning about nature and Gods creation. That is why the founders of modern science were primarily protestants.
So blame the Catholic Church for centuries of ignorance! Actually, if you knew your history of science, the Roman Catholic Church has made perhaps more scientific contributions to science than any other Christian sect. They were also right when they said that making the Bible available for anybody to read would lead to tremendous discord in the Church. The result of doing so has resulted in thousands of different sects all claiming to be "true."
Misinterpreting the Bible.
Is it safe to assume that you never misinterpret the Bible?
All that Darwin found was that animals adapt to the environment. That does not contradict anything in the Bible.
Where does the Bible mention evolution?
Where he contradicted the Bible is when he extrapolated that time could magically use those adaptations to create whole new organisms.
Sure, and that contradiction is supported by modern scientific evidence. Again, your Christian faith inspires you to oppose modern science.
And not all Christians went bonkers, some accepted his theory.
It was primarily Protestants who flipped out over evolutionary science. The Catholics decided to keep quiet because they already had a bad reputation for persecuting Galileo and Bruno.
The Bible does not say there is an ocean of liquid water in the sky. It just says "waters" which in the hebrew can mean any of the different forms of water but which we learn from His creation that in this case it is referring to water vapor.
To heck with what you say "Hebrew" means. I know what I've read in plain English.
But I do need to correct a misunderstanding I had about the firmament. It's not actually an ocean in the sky but a dome that holds up that ocean in the sky. In any case, the firmament is but one example of how the Bible gets science wrong.