Stump the Christian?

[Cato]

It depends on the topic whether there is a proper Christian response. Some things are very clear (love your neighbor). Others things are open to interpretation. I think the proper Christian response to science is let the scientist experiment (within the bounds of ethics). Science has no opinions or worldview. It makes no claims. There are only facts. It is when people of science make philosophical statements that there is a problem--then you cross from science into philosophy.  

It's not this cut and dry. I will agree that science has nothing to say philosophically; however, religion doesn't just sequester itself to the philosophical realm. When Christians make statements of fact regarding our existence, science most certainly can and should be used to evaluate the claim. God exists and interferes in our world. There was a global flood. Leprosy can be cured with a couple birds, a bowl and some flowing water. Houses get leprosy. The sun stood still in the sky. The Earth was created 6,000 to 10,0000 years ago. Species were created in their current form.

I also take exception to this idea that philosophy exists separate from science. Science was born and incubated by philosophy. If philosophy is to have anything to say about our existence or have any practical application, it necessarily must be informed by science. Religion and science are incompatible. I think you'll find philosophy to be an only slightly more hospitable environment for religion since it's ideas don't hold up well to philosophical scrutiny either.

I think evolution should be studied. However, I do object to the teaching as fact, that all life has evolved from nothing and everything has a common ancestor. I think the science curriculum should stop at describing what the theories are and how they work and not stray into statements best left to other fields (like philosophy and religion).  

You are free to provide evidence that contradicts evolution. You are also free to propose another theory that supports the evidence at hand. Dismissing it because it contradicts the claims of an ancient religious text doesn't work; seriously sloppy philosophy.  What statements are better left to philosophy and religion?

And while I have not really followed the campaign for creationism in the science classroom, does it really matter? Is this really a disaster as some claim? If you want to discuss other creation stories from other religions, who cares? It might be better for students to understand there are other views. 

Yes, it does matter. Creationism is not science. Creationism should only be discussed in a comparative religion or mythology class.

Can you give me an example of the anti-science stance of the Christian right? I send my daughter to a very conservative Christian college (Grove City College). They have a stellar reputation in the STEM subjects and graduates are snapped up by Fortune 100 companies 4 weeks before graduation. 

From Grove City College's website:

Grove City College is committed to religious freedom and avoids narrow sectarianism, encouraging a diverse student body from a variety of faith perspectives, socioeconomic backgrounds and ethnic heritage.

http://gcc.edu/about/whoweare/faithandfr...eedom.aspx

Many of our finest educational institutions were initially chartered by religious organizations. The point you keep missing, or intentionally side stepping, is that nobody is claiming that all Christians are nut jobs out of touch with reality. Pointing to a respected college with a liberal view of religious freedom and stated aversion to sectarianism does not exonerate unsubstantiated Christian beliefs nor protect Christianity writ large from scrutiny. I am really struggling with why this is so difficult for you to understand.