Adam, Eve and Evolution

[hecd2]

Continued

I am aware of all that you write here and I think that you are being a little disingenuous in emphasising the error that Galileo made in putting forward the tides as evidence for the rotation of the earth, and even more so in suggesting that he brought his fate on himself.

First of all, Galileo contributed considerably more to developing the heliocentric theory in the Two World Systems than his erroneous demonstration of terrestrial rotation, He contributed refutations of dynamical objections to terrestrial rotation and adduced telling empirical evidence against the Ptolemaic system, such as movement of sunspots, the phases of Venus etc. The tides argument occupies less than a quarter of the book. I remind you that Darwin’s conception of the source of variation on which Natural Selection works was utterly wrong. Both Darwin and Galileo were correct in their conclusions for more good reasons than they made errors.

The Church’s condemnation was focused on the issue of geocentrism versus heliocentrism, not on the cause of the tides:

"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."

It is also disingenuous to suggest that he brought the problem on himself. He was making a scientific argument and whether or not he was right, the Church was badly wrong in its condemnation, both in terms of the side it backed from a scientific point of view and in the wisdom of meddling in the issue in the first place. Talk of Galileo’s belligerence is neither here nor there. He knew that geocentrism could not be right and he said so. My point in this thread is that the Church seems to have learned little from this shameful episode and is going the same way again on this question of monogenism.

Alec

http://www.evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

Much of today’s science is based on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. A theory which to work needed a constant. Einstein used the speed of light as an unchanging constant. Now that is has been scientifically proved that the speed of light is decreasing, does that mean that the foundation is resting on sand?

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

buffalo:

Much of today’s science is based on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. A theory which to work needed a constant. Einstein used the speed of light as an unchanging constant. Now that is has been scientifically proved that the speed of light is decreasing, does that mean that the foundation is resting on sand?

Umm…no. Everyone knows that General Relativity is the most important theory of the 20th Century, and everyone is wrong. Quantum mechanics is not only far more general in its applicability, but far more useful. Your computer for instance works not because of relativity, but because of QM.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[buffalo]

In your opinion what will be the effect of this among the sciences?

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty:

As for your genetic citations, it will take some time for me to look those up. If you have a link to those resources online it would be greatly appreciated. While I’m not a geneticist by any stretch, I’m very well aquainted with its fundamentals from my medical studies. Simply listing references without explaination of what they contain does little to further your argument, at least on the forum, as most people don’t have the basis of understanding or base of study to extrapolate the details of the articles in question based on your brief summary of them.

Based on my current understanding of heterogenous groups, it is very difficult to narrow down the exact nature of the breeding pool in question based purely on a modern sample. I’d appreciate a more clear example of how this is done if at all possible.

No, I’m really sorry but I don’t know of any on-line versions of the references. If you’re interested, you’ll have to go to your local University library which should have most of them as they are mainly good journals. Biology is in the dark ages compared to astrophysics and cosmology that put nearly all their papers on-line.

It’s also not really possible to lay out the full arguments in a forum like this. The arguments are also somewhat different if you look at different sources of evidence (highly polymorphic loci, mtDNA, Y-chromosome data, heterzygosity and allelele size variance imbalance and so on).

At its absolute simplest, if we consider a highly polymorphic locus like DRB-1 in the Human Leucocyte Antigen complex we find 58 human alleles. By carrying out analyses of the pan-speciific alleles we can determine the likely coalescence dates of alleles, by derivation of a phylogenetic tree from pan-specific divergence of individual alleles. That indicates that all 58 alleles persisted through the last 500,000 years of human evolution. The 58 alleles coalesce to 44 lineages by 1.7 Myr BP and to 21 lineages by 6 Myr BP (the apptroximate date of divergence of human and chimpanzee ancestors). Since anatomically modern humans emerge at 125,000 years BP and culturally modern humans at 60,000 years BP, and the human lineage polymorphism at this locus is 58 alleles during this period, this puts a mathematically logical lower limit on the minimum human populatrion size during culturally modern human existence of 29 individuals which in itself destroys the concept of monogeny.

Formal population genetics demands a much larger population than 29 individuals for the maintenanence of 58 alleles in a situation of neutral drift and balanced evolution (where heterozygosity has more fitness than any homozygosity), and the conclusion from these quantitative evolutionary analyses is that the minimum human population bottlemneck was around 10,000 individuals.

Do go to the primary sources, but if you can’t, and you think I can explain anything more clearly, don’t hesitate to come back to me.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

SMHW:

Why would the possibility of those with souls co-existing with those without be so difficult to accept?

This is purely a subjective conclusion on my part. It seems to ME problematic. If having a human soul means anything it must mean having human cognition that is lacking in non-humans. I am quite troubled by the idea of family units containing both humans and non-humans as it seems to me that the humans must recognise the situation. It’s not a question of co-existence, but co-habitation.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

GeorgeCooney:

JMJ

I don’t know if the originator of this thread (quoted above) considers himself to be Catholic or not, but to be Catholic, dogmas may neither be doubted or argued!

Balderdash. Dogmas are always open to challenge. God gave you a mind of your own. Use it.

A single, individual soul was created by God and joined to a single male body to create the first human, and all humans thereafter came from that first human. For Catholics to believe otherwise is heresy.

What, like the heresy of heliocentrism declared as such by the Holy Office of the Inquistion?

There is nothing wrong with exploring the ways and means of nature,

Oh, I am so terribly grateful that doing science is not considered, in itself, a heresy…

but to refuse to accept dogma leads one on long, useless, false pursuits which will end nowhere.

What? Like heliocentrism, 6-day creation, evolution, common descent, polygeny?

This threader also seems to believe that the Cathlic Church has been and is the enemy of science.

No I don’t. The Church is not the enemy of science. I learnt my love of science from my Catholic teachers. But the Church hierarchy takes an arrogant position with regard to science that does the Church harm. Monogeny is just such a position, as it is declared as the dogma, while being denied competely by all scientific evidence. History would support the idea that the evidence will win the argument. I am saddened by the fact that the Church’s authority is undermined by its stance in supporting theological dogma against empirical evidnce. Emprirical evidence will always win.

Without the Catholic Church science would be nowhere today.

Really? That’s a bit rich. I think there were many sources of scientific advancement, many of which fell outside the Catholic Church. Isaac Newton, for example held the Catholic Church in contempt.

It is the acceptance of the Truths of the Church that allow science to advance toward true discovery. Many civilizations prior to the Christian-Western civilization made spectacular, isolated discoveries, but could not sustain the pace, because of their faulty or lack of understanding of God. Look at the discoveries of the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Hindu, the Babylonians, the Maya, etc., etc.

I think there is a lot of merit in the idea that the Christian culture was peculiarly amenable to the scientific method.

It is the Christian recognition of a creation of absolute order by an Infinite God that allows science to progress step-by-step within this order. In the world of chaos there is no order and all attempts to analyze chaos results in chaos. Many of the above civilization having made an individual discovery by accident could not follow up because they assigned unruly divinity to many elements of nature. That brings the same results that come from assuming chaos.

http://www.evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

buffalo:

Now that is has been scientifically proved that the speed of light is decreasing, does that mean that the foundation is resting on sand?

Could you just humour me an give me a peer reviewed cite for the proposition that the speed of light has changed by more than one part in 10,000 in the last 10 billion years?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

What? Like heliocentrism, 6-day creation, evolution, common descent, polygeny?

I posted this as a list of examples of well accepted scientific hypotheses that at one time or another contradicted dogma (in response to GeorgeConney’s assertion that rejecting dogma leads nowhere). Well, of course, 6-day creation doesn’t belong in this list at all and i have no idea why I put it in - pure incompetence is the only explanation!

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Ghosty]

Not so. Part of the evidence for his position (tides as evidence for earth rotation) was wrong. Much else was very tellingly correct

He HAD no proofs. The tidal motion was his only scientific stance. The Copernican system had been accepted, and *taught, *in Catholic universities for years before Galileo came along. It was taught as a sound, but unprovable, hypothesis, which is exactly what it was. Galileo claimed that it should be regarded as complete theory, and when asked to bring forward his proofs, only the tidal motions were used in a novel manner. This is well documented, in fact. The only new piece of “evidence” that Galileo brought to table was the tides. In fact, Galileo wrote in Dialogue on the Two World Systems:

First, I shall try to show that all experiments practicable upon the earth are inszyfficient measures for proving its mobility, since they are indiferently adaptable to an earth in motion or at rest. I hope in so doing to reveal many observations unknown to the ancients. Secondly, the celestial phenomena will be examined strengthening the Copernican hypothesis until it might seem that this must triumph absolutely. Here new reflections are adjoined which might be used in order to simplfy astronomy, though not because of any necess ire importeded by nature. In the third place, I shall propose an ingenious speculation. It happens that long ago I said that the unsolved problem of the ocean tides might receive some light from assuming the motion of the earth. This assertion of mine, passing by word of mouth, found loving fathers who adopted it as a child of their own ingenuity. Now, so that no stranger may ever a who, arming himself with our weapons, shall charge us with want of attention to such an important matter, I have thought it good to reveal those probabilities which might render this plausible, given that the earth moves.

All he did was demonstrate accepted Copernican math, which was already taught in Catholic schools, and advance the tides as the final proof. This assertion was shot down, and only AFTER that was Copernican theory put on the “warning list” because it was believed to be leading people to improper questioning of the Church. Furthermore, he put the Pope’s criticisms of his faulty methods into the mouth of “Simplicio” in the same piece. In a single work he proposed a patently false proof for Copernican system, and essentially called the Pope a simpleton. The sun spots, for example, were given equally valid and observable (for the time) explainations; the tides were his only scientifically demonstratable argument one way or another. You can read this work of his by simple doing a search for the title on the internet.

Exactly right. It was scientific problem that the Church had no business meddling in - he was found guilty of heresy, for heaven’s sake.

Actually, he confessed before being “found” guilty. The verdict was issued due to his signed confession. Read his recantation at law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html

He specifically recanted in order to avoid a full trial over heresy. Essentially, he plea bargained. His personal confession of heresy and writing against his injunction were the only pieces he was actually convicted over.

continued

 

[Ghosty]

I remind you that Darwin’s conception of the source of variation on which Natural Selection works was utterly wrong. Both Darwin and Galileo were correct in their conclusions for more good reasons than they made errors.

And had Darwin put that forth as a crux of his argument for evolution, he’d be a poor scientist. Period. Later vindication of the thrust of an argument does NOT make for good science, espescially when the proofs being advanced are demonstrably false in their own time. Darwin was wise enough to couch his less tenable proofs as hypothesis, rather than brashly steam ahead on the weakest elements of his work. I’m saying this purely as a scientist; I found Galileo to be stepping out of his league long before I became Catholic. In fact, I was still railing against the Roman Inquisition and the Church in general when I came to the conclusion that Galileo was more bluster than proof, precisely because it’s people like him that give fundamentalists an edge of sorts in arguments with scientists like me. They are two sides of the same coin.

It is also disingenuous to suggest that he brought the problem on himself. He was making a scientific argument and whether or not he was right, the Church was badly wrong in its condemnation, both in terms of the side it backed from a scientific point of view and in the wisdom of meddling in the issue in the first place.

He was brought to trial for, and confessed to, violating an injunction against him. This can be read in his own confession that ended his trial. Yes, there were fools in the Church who were using the trial to strong-arm their fundamentalist views, but the fact remains that he was put on trial for writing something he was forbbiden to write about, and he was forbidden precisely because he had shown that he couldn’t prove his assertions. Copernican views were still allowed to be taught and written about as hypothesis, but Galileo was not keeping with this or his personal injunction.

He knew that geocentrism could not be right and he said so.

He didn’t know, but rather thought strongly. He offered no incontravertible scientific proofs for his position. The standards of the Church were FAR more scientific than the kind of scientific relativism we see today by Creationists; they were well aware of the difference between hypothesis and theory, and they taught that difference in their schools. Remember, all sciences were championed by the Church during those times; Copernicus himself was a Church canon.

Monogeny is just such a position, as it is declared as the dogma, while being denied competely by all scientific evidence. History would support the idea that the evidence will win the argument. I am saddened by the fact that the Church’s authority is undermined by its stance in supporting theological dogma against empirical evidnce. Emprirical evidence will always win.

It’s not a dogma, and it’s not even a doctrine, at least not in the sense you seem to take it. Polygeny is perfectly acceptable under Catholic teaching so long as the soul is “monogenous”, and all humans share in that special bloodline. People on both sides seem to be missing this important point.

As for the problem of humans and soul-less humans, why would there even necessarily be an obvious difference that would lead to a breakdown in cohabitation? Having a soul doesn’t necessarily equate to a difference in material cognition, but rather a difference in one’s ability to feel a closeness with God, among other things. A soulless humanoid could theoretically hold a conversation, develop tools, and laugh and cry. We Catholics don’t believe that apes have souls, but we recognize these capabilities in them. How much more would these qualities be present in a creature biologically identical to us?

 

[hecd2]

Ghosty, in your anxiety to be an apologist for the actions of the Church is this affair you are being drawn not only into errors of emphasis, but into plain errors of fact.

Ghosty:

He HAD no proofs. The tidal motion was his only scientific stance.

Science doesn’t go in for ‘proof’. I was under the impression that you had actually read the Dialogue, or at least a neutral gloss of it. Your assertion is false in fact. Not only did Galileo produce a number of rebuttals of arguments against the Ptolemaic system, and in so doing developed and demonstrated the concept of the inertial frame of reference which is a non-trivial foundation for classical mechanics (the Galilean transformation between two frames in constant relative motion is a fundamental in Newtonian mechanics), he produced astronomical evidence that he had himself discovered (sunspots indicating the rotation of the sun and the phases of Venus that rebutted the Ptolemaic system; and the mountains of the moon and the moons of Jupiter rebutted the Aristotleian perfection of the cosmos)

The Copernican system had been accepted, and *taught, *

in Catholic universities for years before Galileo came along. It was taught as a sound, but unprovable, hypothesis, which is exactly what it was.

Really? Perhaps you could provide a respectable reference for the assertion that the Copernican system was accepted and taught in catholic universities AS A COSMOLOGY. In fact, it received a small amount of acceptance as a system for computing planetary positions. As a cosmology it was always distasteful to the church, and was ignored because it did not initially threaten the Aristotleian physics, the Ptolemaic cosmology and the Scriptures. Note that De Revolutionibus Orbium was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1616, along with Kepler’s books, as soon as arguments (including Galileo’s and Kepler’s) that demolished the ‘common sense’ but deeply erroneous objections to the Copernican cosmology began to appear, and were not removed until 1835!! That demonstrates a wonderfully enlightened view of science over more than two centuries, does it not?! In 1616, the concept that the sun is the centre of the world was declared philosophically and theologically absurd and heretical, and the concept that the earth was not the centre of the world and moved was declared similarly absurd and theologically false.

All he did was demonstrate accepted Copernican math, which was already taught in Catholic schools, and advance the tides as the final proof.

This is false, as I have shown above. He added considerable weight to the Copernican argument, but his real crime in the eyes of the church was to popularise the Copernican hypothesis. The Holy Office was outraged that he wrote in Italian. . Good for him, I say. The man in the street deserves the truth.

to be continued

 

[hecd2]

This assertion was shot down, and only AFTER that was Copernican theory put on the “warning list” because it was believed to be leading people to improper questioning of the Church.

The Index of Forbidden Books is a ‘warning list’? – now your apologetics goes too far. The Index of Forbidden Books was a list of books that existed until the 20th Century that Catholics were forbidden on pain of mortal sin to possess or read, and while the Church had secular power, their possession could lead to severe punishments for heresy, and the books themselves were frequently destroyed. Book burning is not an admirable past-time. As you say, the Church believed that scientific truth could lead to theological crisis and therefore sought to suppress it – exactly my point.

Furthermore, he put the Pope’s criticisms of his faulty methods into the mouth of “Simplicio” in the same piece. In a single work he proposed a patently false proof for Copernican system, and essentially called the Pope a simpleton.

The pope did not criticise the tides argument which only occupied a quarter of the book as I have pointed out and you have failed to acknowledge. The pope’s argument, as put in the mouth of Simplicio, was essentially that God was omnipotent and could choose to make the sun stand still if he chose regardless of the laws of physics. As Galileo wrote in reply to Simplicio’s words: ‘Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.’ The pope’s argument was basically the same of fundamentalists who claim ‘light in transit’ and ‘creation with similar genomes’ to explain the patently ancient universe and the related genomes of common descent. Good for Galileo! This is something you really ought to applaud too

The sun spots, for example, were given equally valid and observable (for the time) explainations

Wrong. I suggest you research Galileo’s astronomical work again without the bias you are showing here

to be continued

 

[hecd2]

Actually, he confessed before being “found” guilty. The verdict was issued due to his signed confession. Read his recantation at law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html

Wrong again. Galileo was brought to trial in 1633 by the Roman Inquisition. The judges were ten cardinals. Galileo was questioned first on 12th April 1633 and again three times, the final occasion being 21 June 1633. In parallel, three theological ‘experts’ wrote analyses of The Dialogue and found it supported the banned and heretical Copernican cosmology (oh yes, the church had banned it; your suggestion that it was accepted as a good hypothesis at this time is simply erroneous). On 22 June 1633, the Inquisition pronounced their sentence on Galileo that you can read here:

law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

which declares ‘We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in our presence you abjure, curse and detest the said errors and heresies’ In other words Galileo faced the choice of recanting his belief in the Copernican cosmology (which he never did in his heart), or facing the punishment of a heretic. Giordano Bruno had been burned in Rome for holding to a heretical cosmology (amongst other things). Galileo had been shown the instruments of torture. What was an old man of seventy to do? He recanted, because he had no alternative. He recanted in terms dictated to him by the Holy Office (they wrote his recantation) AFTER he had been found guilty. He recanted on his knees before seven of the ten cardinals. My heart bleeds to think of that great soul on his knees before men such as they were. You chronology is wrong and your conclusions are wrong. The Church does not come out of this affair with any credit whatsoever.

Alec
http://www.evolutionpages.com

 

[SteveG]

hecd2:

Whoever wrote this article might like to visit my website where this is explained:

evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I want to preface the below by clearly stating that I am NOT a young earth creationist and in general have no problem with the concept that evolutionary processes may have been used in bringing about human beings as we currently know them. Though I’d argue for divine intervention in that process (a different subject altogether, and really not a scientific question at all). I further have no need to prove to myself that Adam and Eve lived 6500 years ago (or whatever figure strict creationists use). A much earlier date presents no problems for my from a faith perspective.

The above being said, I have a sincere question regarding the article you link above. I read both your article and the article linked therein written by Carl Wieland. I am not ‘argueing’ for the question I am about to posit, just looking for an explanation.

Assuming you are correct that the 6500 yr age he presents is invalid, and the generally older date has be ‘re-established’ by subsequent studies, is his point (outlined below) valid in your opinion?..

**the evidence from mtDNA, which has suggested that all modern humans come from one woman (steveg comment:according to what I’ve read, he stated this poorly, but let’s put that aside a moment), can mean one of two things.
*

1. There really was only one couple in the beginning—i.e, mitochondrial Eve could be a real Eve, or:
2. All modern humans are descended from only a small population existing at one time. The other ‘mitochondrial lines’ (from the other females living alongside the one whose mitochondrial ‘surname’ is found in all populations today) have become extinct whenever a line had no female offspring. ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ is the only one of the original population in whose offspring there has been a continuous supply of female descendants in each generation. Any of the other women living alongside her could have contributed nuclear DNA to today’s populations, via their sons.***

…I didn’t see that you addressed this in your response, but rather were only addressing the age issue. What’s your take on the above?

 

[buffalo]

There is a difference between Evolution and Darwinism. Most of the atheists on this board are Darwinists. Darwinists believe all the living had a common ancestor. Evolutionists on the other hand don’t all believe this.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

buffalo:

There is a difference between Evolution and Darwinism.

Wow. No guano, Sherlock.

Most of the atheists on this board are Darwinists.

I think you’ll find we’re all ‘gravitationists’ too. I also think you’ll find absolutely zero correlation between being a ‘Darwinist’ and atheist.

Sorry old chap, but your unmitigated ignorance is showing.

Darwinists believe all the living had a common ancestor.

As your name suggests, you do indeed seem to be a member of the Bovidae, intellectually at least. I am somewhere between gobsmacked and apoplectic at your ability to spout ignorant twaddle as if it were… hmm, how to put it… Gospel.

Look, bozo. A ‘Darwinist’, if there were such an animal, is someone who accepts natural selection of variation within populations as the principle mechanism of evolution. Get that? ‘Darwinism’ is a **mechanism ** of evolution. Which makes your…

Evolutionists on the other hand don’t all believe this.

… sound remarkably stupid, don’t you think?

All ‘evolutionists’ (again, a damned fool expression) “believe” in shared common ancestry of all living things. It is an established scientific fact, whether you like it or not. The question is, how did organismal lineages change in morphology over time? And hence, Darwinian natural selection is one mechanism to explain it.

I am also certain we’ve covered this before. So add to your intellectual crimes-of-omission, reading what you’ve already had explained previously.

 

[hecd2]

SteveG:

Assuming you are correct that the 6500 yr age he presents is invalid, and the generally older date has be ‘re-established’ by subsequent studies, is his point (outlined below) valid in your opinion?..

the evidence from mtDNA, which has suggested that all modern humans come from one woman (steveg comment:according to what I’ve read, he stated this poorly, but let’s put that aside a moment), can mean one of two things.

---

1. There really was only one couple in the beginning—i.e, mitochondrial Eve could be a real Eve, or:
2. All modern humans are descended from only a small population existing at one time. The other ‘mitochondrial lines’ (from the other females living alongside the one whose mitochondrial ‘surname’ is found in all populations today) have become extinct whenever a line had no female offspring. ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ is the only one of the original population in whose offspring there has been a continuous supply of female descendants in each generation. Any of the other women living alongside her could have contributed nuclear DNA to today’s populations, via their sons.

…I didn’t see that you addressed this in your response, but rather were only addressing the age issue. What’s your take on the above?

Dear Steve, I have a clear view on the above supported by the science. Mitochondrial Eve is very bad name that I dislike because it suggests what it is not - the correct term is Most Recent Common Ancestor in the Matrilineal Line.

Option 1 above is not supported by science. Option 2 above is clearly supported by the evidence. Matrilineal MRCA is dated at 175,000 years (well before any evidence for cognitively modern humans), and she lived in a world that supported at least about 9,999 other humans of whom some 5,000 were female and of whom many contributed to our current genome through direct descent with some part of the genealogy lying in the male lineage.These (non-Eve) women’s genetic heritage lies in the somatic genome.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Ghosty]

hecd2: Rebuttals of other systems does NOT equate to evidence for one’s own system. I never said that Galileo didn’t punch numerable holes in popular theories, as Copernicus had done before, but that he had failed to demonstrate his own cosmological viewpoint beyond quite reasonable doubt. Proving that 1+1 does not equal 3 is not the same as proving that 1+1 equals 2, and as a fellow scientist you know this.

As for Copernicus’ work being on the Index, it was placed there *conditionally. *Regardless, that wasn’t the “warning list” I was refering to, else I would have said the Index. The warnings about holding to Copernican cosmology went out years before it was placed on the Index. Incidently, it was only the unedited work of Copernicus that was placed on the Index; the very minor revision was allowed to be read and printed. The revisions in question were primarily to change the few times that Copernicus stated something as “most true” as being “hypothesis”, and this was only after Galileo pushed his interpretation of the work. For 73 years prior it had been accepted, as had apparently been intended by Copernicus, that those parts were merely to be accepted as true for the purpose of calculations. Had it been viewed otherwise, it would not have taken 73 years for it to end up on the Index. Quite simply, the work of Copernicus was considered non-threatening as a mathematical treatise.

Regardless, I agree that the Church over stepped its bounds in the issue, but I hold that Galileo was a poor scientist insofar as he asserted proof where none (yet) existed. There were alternate explainations to what he was seeing, and it wasn’t until much later that the multiple explainations could be pared down. The Church shouldn’t have barged into the realm of pure science, and Galileo should not have insulted the Church with his poorly worded writings. Given the evidence of the day, however, the Church certainly had the better of the argument. Had the Church stood up against later, more solid, evidence (in fact it didn’t) I would have to agree with you completely. The Church has simply gotten much more conservative in its approach towards science over the years, which I think is a wonderful thing. In fact, it’s rather become far more embracing of good science.

You can insist that the Church deserves no credit, and in fact I never said it deserved any credit other than accidently holding Galileo to rigorous scientific standards, but to insist that Galileo was some kind of great champion for science in this particular incident is a bit far fetched. He was dogmatic, no different than those he stood against, and time has not vindicated his evidence. Time has merely vindicated the suggestions of Copernicus, suggestions that were freely taught for 73 years before Galileo. Galileo was simply overly excited at seeing things through his telescope that had not been observed before, and made the mistake that too many scientists do in holding scant information as positively demonstrating his theories. While the cosmology turned out to be correct, it was not based on the evidence or reasons that he provided. Galileo is the Louis Leakey of his day, IMHO.

 

[Ghosty]

The Galileo debate is really neither here nor there, however. I’m still interested in why you insist on discarding the notion that there are multiple biological ancestors for humans but only one set of spiritual parents. The statement by the Church falls neatly within this framework, as does the scientific evidence. It would seem that such an argument would be the best of both the scientific and theological worlds combined, and wouldn’t require a compromise from either side.