I am answering without having read your post.So you agree that evolutionary theory is still evolving, but believe it is degrading to state so because the origin of such claims is frequently religious in nature? The source should be irrelevant to the investigation of the facts for a true naturalist, which is really what makes Bill Nye's claim so tragic.
Perhaps now would be a beneficial time for you to clarify what you mean by evolution? While you should be able to make a valid case for micro-evolution, macro-evolution as an origin of the species has far more than a few "gaps" to fill to be anywhere near being definitively correct. Cambrian explosion, punctuated equilibrium, incomplete and contrary fossil evidence and a limited amount of time to complete such massive amounts of speciation are hardly small issues to overcome. This does not even begin to address the direct contradictions raised by what is seen in nature and society with regard to societal benevolence, beneficial mutation and the world's tendency toward decay.
You are seriously overreaching here. Darwinian evolution is not the hinge upon which all medicine and technology turn. The claim itself is laughable given the amazing achievements prior to the concept of evolution even existing. Furthermore, a very strong argument can be made for religion being every bit as critical to societal health and evolution. Without religion to guide us morally and attach meaning to life and the most difficult issues of self and society, we might still be exterminating entire races in an attempt to create the super race Darwin's philosophy ultimately imagined.
This is merely opinion and not fact. Since we are discussing science as it primarily leads to health and life sciences, perhaps you might consider the most significant scientific advancement of it in our age, the human genome project and it's head, Dr. Francis Collins. Collins is a devout Christian and sees no problems with science and faith integration. Also, the scientific community is not so nearly as atheistic as you may believe. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...ci24-2009nov24
Stating opinion as fact does not make it so. Since you appear to be fixated on Christianity, any honest investigation of the Christian Bible will show that it makes several scientific claims and encourages investigation. It applauds a skeptical perspective and the testing of ideas to see what is true. As an aside, the Bible is full of examples of people questioning God and being met not with judgement, but with compassion. Not to be rude, but perhaps a deeper reading of the source material may provide a more factual understanding.
I find it ironic that you demand more evidence from religion than you do from science. It isn't surprising, really, since at this level they both require faith. It is humorous to me that those who put all their eggs in the basket of science do so on what is not and cannot ever truly be 100% scientifically proven. It is faith in the evidence of only that which can be conclusively proven when it cannot be conclusively proven.
Lastly, you say you don't fear the religious but contradict yourself by enumerating the fears you have of the religious. I will not pretend that bad things have not been done in the name of religion, but they pale in comparison to those done in the name of advancing purely naturalistic philosophies. This is not an argument that a naturalist really wants to hang their hat on...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Just one question: are you Statler?
This breaking apart of quotes is getting really on my nerves.
Until you actually learn to keep everything in context I will not respond to your posts.