So you ignore all the things that you were clearly wrong on to pick a particular item you could criticize for. That doesn't sound exactly fair.
Furthermore your criticism is itself weak. You drew a parallel between what I said and a discredited version of the history. Well fine. But that discredited version of the history was not at all what I was saying.
What I was saying is that Christianity can't validly claim credit for the progress of science, and that as science progresses there will inevitably come to be conflicts with religion. A short list starts with the fact that the Earth moves around the Sun, the fact that there never was a world flood, the fact that the Earth is much older than the Bible accepts, and evolution. As well as many more minor conflicts.
This is not to say that there aren't people of good will on both sides. It is also not to say that religious people did not contribute to science. From Isaac Newton on down, they did. However the relationship is one where science continues to expand and eventually creates new conflicts with religious faith.
Also the early history of modern science is complicated by the fact that it coincided with the Protestant Reformation. A period where people were killing each other in large numbers over what should have been minor disagreements on faith. (As an example in the 30 years war, something like 1/3 of people living in what is today Germany got killed.) In this atmosphere it was very, very easy for what should be innocuous intellectual inquiry to draw the ire of local religious leaders. And it was also easy for people to self-censor if they got scared. This was not a permanent state of things, but it was a real problem in the 1600s.
To support your view your cite Draper's book, which proposes the conflict view of science and religion. Both Draper's book and the conflict view are discredited.
I, on the other hand, refer to Stark's work, which is state of the art as far as I know.
Most of modern science was founded by religious people. This seems very odd if there is an intrinsic conflict between religion and science.
To avoid a lot of back and forth, what credible modern scholar can you cite to back up your point of view?
Furthermore your criticism is itself weak. You drew a parallel between what I said and a discredited version of the history. Well fine. But that discredited version of the history was not at all what I was saying.
What I was saying is that Christianity can't validly claim credit for the progress of science, and that as science progresses there will inevitably come to be conflicts with religion. A short list starts with the fact that the Earth moves around the Sun, the fact that there never was a world flood, the fact that the Earth is much older than the Bible accepts, and evolution. As well as many more minor conflicts.
This is not to say that there aren't people of good will on both sides. It is also not to say that religious people did not contribute to science. From Isaac Newton on down, they did. However the relationship is one where science continues to expand and eventually creates new conflicts with religious faith.
Also the early history of modern science is complicated by the fact that it coincided with the Protestant Reformation. A period where people were killing each other in large numbers over what should have been minor disagreements on faith. (As an example in the 30 years war, something like 1/3 of people living in what is today Germany got killed.) In this atmosphere it was very, very easy for what should be innocuous intellectual inquiry to draw the ire of local religious leaders. And it was also easy for people to self-censor if they got scared. This was not a permanent state of things, but it was a real problem in the 1600s.