The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview

Willowtree has a number of times said that the scientific methodology is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't tread on the toes of theism. I'd like to know how exactly evolution treads on the toes of theism though?Evolution contains no religious claims, it is a theory much like any other that is infered from the evidence from a number of fields of science. Surely by saying that evolution is wrong purely based on theistic concerns you're committing the equally bad crime of letting theism tread on the toes of science! You're placed in the situation of saying that the scientific method is the way to find truths about the naturualistic world, but for purely theistic (and not scientific) reasons, it can't be used in this situation in the naturalistic world.I agree completely with you that science cannot be used to prove/disprove a god (theistic issues), and it cannot be used to prove that the christian message of salvation through jesus christ is wrong (theistic issues). Why then allow theism to be used to invalidate scientific claims about the natural world?(Added in edit) Sorry, its late here. I also meant to include that science cannot disprove that a god is the creator and sustainer of life on earth, and evolution doesn't attempt to do that. If you take evolution to be an attempted proof that there is no god, then your view of it must have been tainted by your theistic worldview This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 10-31-2004 09:24 PM

There would be an interesting excercise. Construct a scientific model of the universe that either agreed with all religions, or stayed out of issues that couldn't be resolved without contradiction. How much of science would remain?