Thanks for the added perspective on this. It is one of those stories that is so easy for people to rattle off like a sound bite - "Oh those anti-science Christians!"

Even if the church was completely wrong on the Galileo thing, has anyone noticed that we remember Galileo for this, but we can't rattle off dozens of other people? Maybe that is because the church wasn't anti-science!

Hi Dan,

I like the series you have going on. Keep them coming. There is plenty of material to feel guilty about.

Oh boy, where to start on this one...

"To suppose that any body of men could deliberately adopt such a course is ridiculous, especially a body which, with whatever defects of method, had for so long been the only one which concerned itself with science at all" - Here is the wording on the Inquisition Documents, "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures". That seems like a fairly straight forward case of Religion holding back science to me...

"Galileo was imprisoned in a luxurious apartment and visited his friends" - Ever heard the expression, "A guilded cage is still a cage"? We can only dream of the scientific works that he could have come up with had he been allowed to persue them fully.

"I am suggesting that we should not feel guilty or be made to apologize for straw man polemic against a Christian Church that practically founded science" - Luckily the Roman Catholic Church didn't feel the same way. On 31st October 1992, (only 350 years after Galileo had died), Pope John Paul II "...expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture". So 462 years after Nicolaus Copernicus finished wriring, "De Revolutionibus", the Pope says it's right. Way to go.

Johnny,

1. "That seems like a fairly straight forward case of Religion holding back science to me..."

And your point is? Scientists supported the geocentric model of the universe, so science also held back science. Are you suggesting we should scrap religion and science because of mistakes?

2. "Ever heard the expression, "A guilded cage is still a cage"? We can only dream of the scientific works that he could have come up with had he been allowed to persue them fully."

How did you come to the conclusion that Galileo wasn't allowed to pursue "scientific works", whatever that means? It was because Galileo was not practicing sound science that his contemporaries did not accept his work.

3. "Luckily the Roman Catholic Church didn't feel the same way."

Luckily, I am not Roman Catholic, nor am I obliged to defend anything the Roman Catholic church has or has not done. You on the other hand, can go ahead and explain why Galileo's contemporaries refused to accept his conclusions while you point your finger at the Pope. I'll be waiting.

Dan - are you suggesting here that religious scholars don't deny widely accepted scientific ideas when they don't fit with biblical descriptions of events? *ahem* creationism *ahem*.

No.

Dan,

Sorry for the delay in answering, I only found this site by accident and couldn't find it again.

1. I like the way you only pick up some of the points I made and ignored others, the most important one being the actual wording used in the Inquisition Documents -

"The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures".

That seems pretty clear cut to me. Other scientists may not have agreed, (many did), but they didn't lock him in his house for the rest of his life.
2. How did you come to the conclusion that Galileo wasn't allowed to pursue "scientific works"

Well the very fact he was imprisoned for it allows me to come to that conclusion. Would you be able to work properly whilst trying to second guess what the Vatican might do to you if your disoveries disagree with scripture?

3. You on the other hand, can go ahead and explain why Galileo's contemporaries refused to accept his conclusions while you point your finger at the Pope. I'll be waiting.

Disagreements in science occur all the time with some refusing to believe in new discoveries. (this one wasn't even Galileo's). Look at the fuss over string theory at the moment. Some scientists refuse to even accept it as a theory because it is untestable, which makes it a philosophy according to them. As I said previously, THEY didn't lock him up, the Pope did.

Well the very fact he was imprisoned for it allows me to come to that conclusion. Would you be able to work properly whilst trying to second guess what the Vatican might do to you if your disoveries disagree with scripture?

Gally continued pursuing his scientific works while imprisoned.

I don't dispute that he did.

It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he dedicated his time to one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. Where he summarised work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials. This book has received high praise from both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. As a result of this work, Galileo is often called, the "father of modern physics."

But that was going over old work, not carrying out anything new.

I think the fact that the RCC has officially apologised for what they did shows that it was wrong.

Johnny O is the typical anti-Christian troll that uses the "Science vs Religion" lie to propagate his ideas.

Galileo was a practicing christian creationist all his life, and here is his real story :

http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_1.htm

You atheists/agnostics stop hijacking the name of great Christian scientists for your anti-Church propaganda.

URL badly displayed :

http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_1.htm

Johnny O is the typical anti-Christian troll that uses the "Science vs Religion" lie to propagate his ideas.

Way to keep it civil and grown up.

I am at a loss to see how you can possibly say that I have hijacked this story. The Original wording of the documents is quite clear.

And even that great mill stone around the neck of human development, the Roman Catholic Church apologised for the way it treated Galileo.

Galileo was a practicing christian creationist all his life

I don't doubt it. He was also a very loyal Catholic... so what? How does that in any way refute the claim that he was imprisoned, by the church, for contradicting scripture.

Even the website you put a link up for says,

"Our purpose here is not to exonerate the Catholic Church, which is surely culpable for the injustice done to Galileo (for which the Pope formally apologized in 1992)."

What have I said that is so different from that?

During and after the period of house arrest in Rome, and when he was allowed to return home to Arcetri, Galileo continued to do scientific experiments and publish with relative freedom.

If it wasn't for the word, "relative", I'd say that was just a lie. I've stated above what work Galileo did whilst under arrest and very little of it was anything new.

Galileo's opponents were primarily academics and professors, not churchmen.

Unfortunately it was the churchmen that locked him up, not the academics or professors. Again, as stated above.

Galileo's "heresy" was against Aristotle, not the Bible!

Then why did the church get involved and why did they use this phrase in the Inquisition Documents, "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures". Make a special note of the last 8 words. Yet again, as stated above.

I wonder Durandal if you actually read anything I wrote or even the website you had the link to?

I don't doubt it.

Doupt is not fact.

I wonder Durandal if you actually read anything I wrote or even the website you had the link to?

And I wonder if you ever use your brain.

It's not because the RCC says something is against Scipture that it is. The RCC just used that as an excuse to legitimise its actions. Do you really think that the RCC would say "It is against pagan greek philisophy" (the more popular theory at the time) without looking heretical itself ?!

Remember that at the same time there was the Counter-Reformation and that the RCC needed to convince people that its dogmas and actions were biblically-backed (either they were or not).

The RCC is not innocent, but the reasons for wich Galileo was disliked were not because

Unfortunately it was the churchmen that locked him up, not the academics or professors.

The Roman Church was very powerfull and Galileo had many friends in the Church, it is no suprise that his opponents decided to use the Church to try to silence him.

Even the website you put a link up for says

And I agree with the website.

Oh BTW : I like the way you only pick up some of the points made in the site and ignored others.

Doupt is not fact

What??? I was agreeing with you.

And I wonder if you ever use your brain

So far I'm an "anti-Christian troll" and now I've "never used my brain". Is this what Jesus would do? Throw pointless insults rather than take part in polite discourse?

It's not because the RCC says something is against Scripture that it is.RCC just used that as an excuse to legitimise its actions

Are you saying they just lied and make up a charge to shut him up, rather than say, "You know what, he might be on to something. Why don't we let him investigate it a bit more"? Surely an organisation that deals with ultimate truths should give the guy a break?

You are contradicting yourself all over the place here.

the RCC needed to convince people that its dogmas and actions were biblically-backed

it is no surprise that his opponents decided to use the Church to try to silence him.

Now did the RCC do it, or were they merely puppets used by others to silence him? I'm not sure which veiw you're backing?

I like the way you only pick up some of the points made in the site and ignored others

I picked the ones that address the comments made in the initial post about the subject. That Galileo was persecuted and imprisoned as a heretic because his theory contradicted the Holy Scriptures, when that is EXACTLY what the Inquisition Documents say.

I'm not hijacking the name of great Christian scientists for my anti-Church propaganda as you put it. I know he was a practising Catholic, he was very good friends with the Pope and his book "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" was deliberately and unnecessarily provocative, portraying the person who disagreed with him as a fool.

It doesn't however legitimise being arrested and jailed.

What??? I was agreeing with you.

Okay my bad.

Is this what Jesus would do?

[yawn]

Now did the RCC do it, or were they merely puppets used by others to silence him? I'm not sure which veiw you're backing?

The RCC permitted it. The RCC had pressure from the partisans of geocentrism, and was obviously opposed to his opinion that every men could interpret the Bible, not just the clergymen and their supposed "divine inspiration".

Are you saying they just lied and make up a charge to shut him up, rather than say, "You know what, he might be on to something. Why don't we let him investigate it a bit more"? Surely an organisation that deals with ultimate truths should give the guy a break?

I'm ain't arguing the RCC was holy or acted correctly, I'm arguing that the caricature of some religious authorities on the haunt for a scientist for the sole reason that he is trying to understand the workings of the solar system he is biased.

I'm not hijacking the name of great Christian scientists for my anti-Church propaganda as you put it.

Persons like you use icons like Galileo to fuel the popular belief of "religion versus science" by showing only half of the story and making easy intelectual shortcuts like "oh, some clergymen in the 16th century jailed a scientific, therefore religion is intrinsically opposed to scientific progress".

Galileo was persecuted and imprisoned as a heretic because his theory contradicted the Holy Scriptures, when that is EXACTLY what the Inquisition Documents say.

You don't get it, everyone who opposed the RCC's mood of the day was (in theory) de facto "opposed to Holy Scripture". That's just some sort of post-scriptum to try to give RCC edicts "supreme authrority". If helicentrism had been more popular than geocentrism those days and that Galileo had been supporting geocentrism, the same post-scriptum would have appeared in the Inquisition documents.

Now, I'm not gonna argue on this one-year-old English-language blog article forever. The real reasons behind Galileo's trial have been documented and explainded more than enough.

So here's a link for furthur digging into this topic so Christian desiring to learn the truth about this page of history can do so.

6 Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization - http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Myths-Christianity-Western-Civilization/dp/083082281X

There's an entire part of this book dedicated to elucidate the Galileo story. Also check-up Inventing the Flat Earth - http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X/

"There's an entire part of this book dedicated to elucidate the Galileo story. Also check-up Inventing the Flat Earth - http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X/"

Also check out my Guilty Christians series for more modern myths. I cover flat earth, the Inquisistions, Crusades and more!

The RCC permitted it. The RCC had pressure from the partisans

The RCC was the single most powerful organisation in Europe at the time. They would never have bowed to pressure from outside they don't do it now and they certainly wouldn't have done it then.

I'm arguing that the caricature of some religious authorities on the haunt for a scientist for the sole reason that he is trying to understand the workings of the solar system he is biased.

"Some Religious Authourites"?. What about THE religious authourity of the day?

Persons like you use icons like Galileo to fuel the popular belief of "religion versus science"

So you just dismiss everything I wrote in that paragraph? You KNOW what I think better than I do?I don't need Galileo to make that point... Creationism, Evolution, Cosmolgy, Stem Cell Research, The RCC's stance on condoms in the face of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Pope Benedicts closing of the Vatican Observatory. There are loads. Religion is forever showing it's opinion of science when contradicts it's belief's, it doesn't seem to learn from the fact that it is yet to actually win any of the arguements.

Also check out my Guilty Christians series for more modern myths

Dan, the whole flat Earth falaccy truly is a myth, I agreed with you on that one. We did have a decent chat about the crusades, but I've yet to go and comment on the Inquisition thread... so keep an eye out ;-)

"Stem Cell Research"

I find it odd that you would pick that one as "religion vs. science." Science is quite clear: A unique human being is created at conception.

There is just one question: Is it moral to destroy that human being for medical research?

Any debates about whether she is a "person" or not are purely philosophical and are most certainly not scientific.

Same thing for the abortion debate. I'm always amused at the inconsistency of the "science" crowd (I'm glad to be part of the religion and science crowd myself). The science couldn't be more clear, yet most of these folks seem to be pro-legalized abortion.

Neil: A unique human being is created at conception.

Not quite correct. A (possibly/probably) unique sequence of DNA is created at conception. I'm not certain, but the inital 2 cells can probably differ genetically.
That the DNA is very likely to be similar to DNA which we would think of as "human", and the expressed phenotype is likely to resemble what we think of as human is also true.

What is it that makea a human being, in your opinion Neil?
If it's simply unique DNA, then mutated cancer cells are a new human.
If it is phenotype, then a blastocyst and zygote are not human.
If it's our conscious mind/soul, then you'd have to accept other species as semi-human, and zygotes as not.
Is it the potential to be what we call a human child or adult? So, if under certain circumstances chimp DNA could express a human phenotype, you'd accept the result as human, though possibly not homosapiens, due to breeding difficulties?

"What is it that makea a human being, in your opinion Neil?"

Unique DNA is just one attribute - scientifically, you would look at other things as well.

I just use that as a shorthand to expose the frauds who pose as pro-science and try to impugn religious folk as being anti-science.

Those steeped in the evils of pro-abortion thinking forget that science is completely against them and that they must ignore science and focus on strained philosophical nonsense to maintain their anti-life position.

I must admit that it is a lot of fun to point out their hypocrisy, which even they seem blind to. Because even IF their "science" arguments worked for a brief time after conception (and they don't), they never seem to be against partial-birth abortion, abortions at 6 months, 3 months, etc. Anti-science all the way.

"Is it the potential to be what we call a human child or adult? So, if under certain circumstances chimp DNA could express a human phenotype, you'd accept the result as human, though possibly not homosapiens, due to breeding difficulties?"

The "potential" argument is transparently false. A toddler is a potential teen, but you can't use that as an excuse to kill her.

The unborn aren't "potential" human beings, they are human beings. If you want to use that lame philosophical argument, then go have a potential abortion instead of a real one. And try to be consistent with science vs. philosophy, even though that makes pro-abortion word games impossible.

I just use that as a shorthand to expose the frauds who pose as pro-science and try to impugn religious folk as being anti-science.

So when Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor the Head Roman Catholic Bishop in my country (UK), says he is against stem cell research he does it on "scientific" grounds? Apart from referring to it as Frankenstein Science, it was all the usual nonsense about having a soul from the moment of conception. Not massively scientific and he was rightly slapped down by the scientific community and given a few biology lessons.

Was George Dubbya basing his reasoning on scientific grounds when he stopped funding for it in the US? He doesn't seem too concerned about the sanctity of life in Iraq. I'm very confused by a man who advocates the death penalty, but is against abortion? Surely life is life?

Being an atheist with no basis for any morals, (isn't that how you usually put it?), I can make a distinction on 'types' of life and don't have any ethical problem with destroying a bunch of cells in a Petri dish.

I just use that as a shorthand to expose the frauds who pose as pro-science and try to impugn religious folk as being anti-science.

Maybe I was being to broad with my brush strokes. Religion and the Religious aren't anti-science per se, (you are after all using a computer), but they are anti-science that contradicts their holy books, regardless of the evidence or benefits of that science, (or anything else really)

I must admit that it is a lot of fun to point out their hypocrisy, which even they seem blind to.

Neil, can I get you point it out for me please mate? I 'think' I know what you are referring to but would like to be sure before commenting.

Thanks

"I'm very confused by a man who advocates the death penalty, but is against abortion? Surely life is life?"

Abortion destroys an innocent human being, and there are 20,000 per week in the U.S. No anestheic is required for the victim.

Capital punishment kills a human being guilty of 1st degree murder who exhausted 10+ years of appeals, and there is 1 (one) per week in the U.S. Anesthetic is required for the guilty party.

I hope that helps clear up the confusion of those who can't distinguish between the two procedures.

If you'll give the unborn 10 years of appeals then I'll be pro-choice ;-).

I'm not Catholic, I don't live in your country and am not familiar with the person you are quoting, so I won't try to analyze your interpretation of what he said.

Bush's position on stem cell research was very well thought out. He just stopped Federal funding. You are welcome to invest your own money in the procedure if you like, but the smart money is in adult stem-cell research, which has demonstrated actual results in a non-lethal way.

"I can make a distinction on 'types' of life and don't have any ethical problem with destroying a bunch of cells in a Petri dish."

Slavery, abortion and other evils have similar foundations: People who distort what it means to be a human being. They do it with little sound bites such as, "a bunch of cells in a petri dish." If we put you in a large petri dish that would qualify as a "bunch of cells," wouldn't it?

"they are anti-science that contradicts their holy books, regardless of the evidence or benefits of that science, (or anything else really)"

Nope. I won't take the thread off track to address the falsehood that the Bible contradicts science. I'd skip the "benefits of science" line of thinking, as that is so broad as to include medical experimentation on prisoners or to support cloning.

And we aren't arguing "regardless of the evidence." I'm the one pointing to the evidence that the unborn are human beings. You're the one with the philosophical "personhood" rationalizations and the "bunch of cells" euphemisms.

The hypocrisy I mentioned was the "pro-science" crowd abandoning scientific arguments for weak philosophical ones while at the same time repeating the canard that pro-lifers are anti-science.

Neil: Unique DNA is just one attribute - scientifically, you would look at other things as well.

Such as?
I'll admit that after conception the 2 cells are carrying what could be termed "human" DNA, but I think I'd have trouble calling them a human being (perhaps they'll be 2 human beings, in the case of identical twins).
Merriam Webster defines a 'Human being' as 'a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)'. A zygote/blastocyst is bipedal, and doesn't display mammalian features :-)

Neil: Nope. I won't take the thread off track to address the falsehood that the Bible contradicts science.

Not to derail the thread, but you do seem to ignore scientific evidence when it isn't convenient or goes against your beliefs - the theory of evolution and a global flood for example :-)

Now, whether the evidence contradicts the bible depends on whether you see the writings as factual or mythical (or in your case Neil, "Contextual") :-)

"Not to derail the thread, but you do seem to ignore scientific evidence when it isn't convenient or goes against your beliefs - the theory of evolution and a global flood for example :-)"

Nope, you just don't understand either topic well enough to discuss it intelligently. You use the deceptive term "evolution" without acknowledging the macro/micro distinction. Yeah, I know you guys ignore that so save your keystrokes. I don't waste time with people who can't distinguish between bacteria changing and the same thing evolving to elephants and caterpillars/butterflies.

There is plenty of evidence for the flood.

Those are lame attempts to distract from your hypocritical abortion stances, by the way.

So when does Mr. Science person think it is wrong to crush and dismember whatever this mysterious "thing" is that people pay several hundred dollars to have destroyed? I mean, it really is quite a mystery. We just have no idea what it reall is.


Is partial birth abortion OK? If so, why not infanticide? Your non-scientific "personhood" argument would still give you permission for that.

Neil, right on brother. Most of the misrepresentation of the neo-Darwinian synthesis rests squarely on the shoulders of those who most stridently support it.

Attempts to differentiate things like micro/macro Darwinian evolution (it's all termed "evolution"), embryonic/adult stem-cells (they are all called "stem cells") and same-sex marriage (called "gay" marriage) meet with glassy-eyed stares.

Mostly, it's difficult to pin them down because they simply don't think through their own beliefs and thus can't discuss them intelligently.

Neil: You use the deceptive term "evolution" without acknowledging the macro/micro distinction.

That would be because it's the same mechanisms, just generally a longer time span in the case of so called "macro" evolution.
Accepting "micro" evolution and denying "macro" evolution is like saying that walking can take you to your front door, or around the block, but no way could you go across the country.
That's not to say "macro" can't happen in a short period, such as occurred with "Spartina anglica".

Neil: There is plenty of evidence for the flood.

Nope, sorry. There is evidence for local floods, lots of them, in lots of different locations.
No evidence for a global flood such as depicted in the bible though, unless Yahweh hid the mess afterwards, and planted all sorts of other evidence to throw us off the scent.

Neil: Those are lame attempts to distract from your hypocritical abortion stances, by the way.

Nope, just bringing up your own hypocrisies.

Neil: So when does Mr. Science person think it is wrong to crush and dismember whatever this mysterious "thing" is that people pay several hundred dollars to have destroyed? I mean, it really is quite a mystery. We just have no idea what it really is.

I've said on your blog before, that when mental activity begins is where I would advocate.

Dan: Attempts to differentiate things like micro/macro Darwinian evolution (it's all termed "evolution"),

As I said above, it's because there are no different mechanisms proposed for "macro" and "micro".

Dan: embryonic/adult stem-cells (they are all called "stem cells")

Perhaps because they're all stem cells? Just the method of obtaining the cells differs. Actually, most of the time I hear about it, they are actually differentiated.
Things may have advanced, but last I heard "adult" stem cells were no at flexible of useful as "embryonic" stem cells.

Dan: and same-sex marriage (called "gay" marriage)

I'd prefer simply "marriage", with no differentiation depending on the sex of the couple.

Dan: meet with glassy-eyed stares.

*Havok goes glassy eyed* :-)

"I've said on your blog before, that when mental activity begins is where I would advocate."

How very scientific of you. How do you know when it begins? You can't just use an average, because on one side of the line is murder and the other side is an allegedly benign procedure. You'd need to test it for each and every being you are about to destroy.

"I'd prefer simply "marriage", with no differentiation depending on the sex of the couple."

Sure, why not, as long as you are making up words I suppose they can mean anything you like.

Today is the 375th anniversary of the Vatican Inquisition's judgment on Galileo.

Just thought it was rather interesting that we still talk about it today.

Happy Intolerance Day everybody.

Interesting website with lots of links to follow the story.

The Church Of England are to officially apologise to Charles Darwin for their rejection of Evolution...

The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.

At least they didn't wait 350 years this time.

LOL. I didn't realize the Church of England rejected evolution! I don't know of any other Christians who do. (well, maybe Edgar)

Good thing I don't belong to that denomination.

When are atheists going to apologize for Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?

I didn't realize the Church of England rejected evolution

Only when it was first published.

When are atheists going to apologize for Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?

When they say they did what they did in the name of Atheism, rather than because of some messed up Marxist Ideology.

I have no problem with admitting they WERE Atheists, but don't agree they did the henious things they did BECAUSE of Atheism.

There is no ideology in lack of belief.

VATICAN CITY, Sep. 16, 2008 (Reuters) - The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

I suppose 150 years is a bit soon for the Vatican...

What's with all the apologies? Everyone seems to want one these days, even if it's for a dead person.

I think it's because of the massive amount of Darwin books, TV programmes and articles being written at the moment.

Next year is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of The Orrigin of Species.

All this apologising is a bit silly to honest, it's not as though anyone was harmed or anything. I only put it on here as a laugh.