Really?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0417ethiopian.asp

 No they will focus on the 20th century as the beginning of a golden age of science, just as we now view the beginning of the Roman Empire and the reign of Augustus as a golden age of culture. In fact perhaps that is a more apt example than I thought. Prior to that period was a century of civil war for the SPQR, yet through that time and for the life of Augustus after it civilization and culture flourished. Now we look back on that time as the golden age of Rome, as some of the defining moments of culture and civilization in the history of mankind. Not as an age of war.

 Your examples are irrelevant and your statements are wrong. The dark ages were dark, man did not progress and in fact lost progress that had been made in the centuries prior. They are nothing like the times we are currently going through which is one of extreme and amazing progress. 

Obviously the fall of the Roman Empire had a huge impact on the scientific community. That alone really put the community in a bind as states were split, scientists didn't communicate, and vast libraries were lost forever. It's hard to progress much in that situation.

But the key is that the Dark Ages lasted for a long time yet very little advancement in science was made, even after the feudal monarchies established and the regions were somewhat stabilized. IMO, it's not a coincidence that during that period of scientific limbo, religion grew in its place and later actually constrained the scientific community as it tried to re-emerge.

It is a shame that so much of Galen's work was lost. From what I know of his work, the shit he did was amazing. 

However, the first attempts to bring back science were by Holy Roman Empire through the Catholic Church. Until the Holy Roman Empire broke up.

During that time religion was activly trying to promote and bring back science.

As you have seen from Ben Stein's trailor, there are tons of scientists who are on a quest for knowledge who do not completely accept evolution. I seek knowledge every day that I get up in the morning and I believe that evolution makes some reasonable suggestions, but just because you agree with one standpoint of a Presidential candidate, it doesn't mean he should be elected into office.

There are two groups of people who believe in ID: Those that believe in it because it was written in a religious text and those who have searched for an answer with evolution or other ideas and have come to the conclusion that ID is still the best explaination. Yes, ID is very general, it doesn't specify. How can it??? If ID is true, you would have to see who or what race started it all. That is not possible, but that does not mean it isn't right. To discredit or give credit to something that you cannot prove or disprove is true ignorance. If you believe in Evolution for the simple fact that there is more associative evidence, it shows that you are simply a slave to the system. Why do you think Evolution exists? Stop a moment and think outside the box. Darwin made observations and theorized about Evolution. This is an unproven theory based on OBSERVATION and ASSOCIATION. OF COURSE it is going to have some amount of evidence to support it, the observations and associations! You know how everyone gets mad on these boards when someone makes a stupid topic that cherry picks certain bits of information from the chartz or around their local stores and makes extreme claims. Well that is EXACTLY what Evolution is at it's core.

Good find.  I just wish the article I linked had bothered to provide an update on the matter.

The position you're taking stills leaves the conundrum that you have to admit god doesn't exist to hold the position if you wish not to be a hypocrite.

How you ask? 

Glad you asked, let me explain:  If your position is that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence then God himself fails this test and thus by this logic doesn't exist.

As I've already stated in this thread the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence and the position you and Kaza hold is untennable logically speaking.

If your best proof that evolution is incorrect is that they've only proven it to be true of traits within a species then you have a fairly weak argument considering that basic logic can lead anyone to deduce that even large quantities of small changes over time can cause two different populations to diverge significantly enough to become something else.  Really that process doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to understand, but somehow your contention is that because nobody on a Video Game website can show you proof that it happened you would proclaim that it never can?

Not everything the church has done is bad, let's not go down that path... In that vein of thought, Copernicus originally set out to prove that the Sun revolved around the Earth and we all know how that turned out. The church didn't exactly appreciate his findings and it led to several fiercely fought battles over the next two centuries, culminating with Galileo being forced to decry his own findings and later, his imprisonment.

The church may have funded science in some forms during the dark ages but often times if the discoveries didn't agree with their teachings, the knowledge was squashed and the person called a heretic. After all, during that time, the church was really the only establishment that had the kind of power and money to fund the arts or science. Some of the results were good but many, many were bad.

Oh, and furthermore... after the Christians got together again, the greedy Crusades actually brought them into contact with the technology and books that helped boost europes knowledge back up...

Mostly by newly universitys supported by... the Holy Roman Empire again. Organized religion did a lot more then any other group to bring back science actually.

So how can you claim the Church held back science when they were the only ones who could fund it? Had they not funded it at all would it not have been in a worse state?

Had we not had such strong religious institutions it seems rather dubious that anywhere near the amount of progress that was made would have been made. 

And most of those advancements happened after the Dark Ages. I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing that the church didn't fund a lot of scientific research during the Renaissance.