As I said elsewhere, eldavojohn appears to be looking for a philosophical argument that proves there is no conflict between science and religion, not a scientific one. While Dr. Bakker has made a good scientific argument (based on solid evidence), a philosophical one is a bit harder to maintain (in general, not just in this case, good philosophical arguments can be made both ways for all complex issues). Of course, that's the point of science - evidence trumps hypothesis
I actually find Dr. Bakker's take much more scientific than yours. He looks at the data from the past ~2000 years and uses it to answer the question of "is there a conflict between religion and science?" and comes to the conclusion that while there has been some tension, it's not necessarily between those two. As evidence, he gives some examples with which he is familiar, and comes to a reasonable conclusion.
You, on the other hand, take his argument and make up unfalsifiable claims that we would be "far better off" today if the church had been less powerful centuries ago. You may be right, but you're really taking this on faith, there is no way to prove your claims. You're also speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you say Augustine was a successful scientist because of his mindset, on the other you insinuate that if he had a questioning mindset he would have been burned at the stake (wrong time period, but hey).
Likewise, because a Reverend could use evidence to come to the correct conclusion that dinosaurs were more like birds doesn't present one shred of evidence to me that Christianity is right, let alone reconcilable with science.
It actually proves that someone very "into" Christianity can come up with good scientific conclusions, so I'm not sure what evidence would convince you that it is reconcilable with science. I think what you're saying is that the conclusion is in spite of the philosophical leanings of the person in question. In that case, you're not looking for evidence, you're looking for a philosophical argument, and you should be asking your questions to a philosopher, not a scientist.
The liberal rage machine ain't pretty either (see the first part of my reply), but the problem isn't the bias of the machine, it's the tone. The problem is that from the inside it's easy to get worked up about the other side and not realize how ugly the tone is on your own side.
There's a legitimate argument to be had over the role of government, the problem is that people get so wrapped up in their own view (and on both sides it's usually actually that "my" government can do no wrong, "their" gov can do no right - whether Bush or Obama is president - which is fantasy either way) that they can't see the good in others.
Should we allow dumping toxic chemicals into river water? No! Should there be 50 different federal agencies to prevent it? Also no! In general, today, we've swung towards many, ineffective and bloated agencies instead of few, effective and streamlined. If you've dealt with a government agency or worked for one, you know this. Should torture be used routinely? No! However, both Bush and Obama have used intel gained by what I would call torture, to a fairly similar degree as far as I can tell (and not an extensive nor a routine one), but the reaction from any individual depends heavily on what side of the spectrum they identify themself with. Either "Obama/Bush is a hypocrite" or "Obama/Bush is just doing what he needs to", depending which four year stretch you're in.
Just to pile on, when you say "both sides do it," you are implicitly refusing to deal with the actual topic at hand, which is for example "budget" or "national security," or whatever.
So when you do that, you are basically throwing up your hands and saying "who can know such things?"
It's fucking lazy. Very, fucking lazy. I don't have much time to argue with people too lazy to at least delve into the elements of a topic. You obviously are.
A few very big assumptions in there - very lazy of you. Shouldn't you have at least researched greenbird's personal record on researching the actual topics at hand? Maybe he deals with them explicitly instead of implicitly like you do
"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry