Galileo's Recanting

[VociMike]

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

So a dogmatic tenet of the faith is only found in “the Vatican minutes”?! Please pardon my inability to take such a proof seriously.

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

Well, the sun isn’t the center of the world in any understanding I am aware of, so nobody should have a problem with this statement.

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

This is the crux, isn’t it. A statement by a commission, found in the Vatican minutes, that the earth moves is at least erroneous in faith. And you rest your rejection of 500 years of voluminous evidence on such a thin thread?

I’m curious, do you think we landed on the moon? If you do, do you think the trajectory calculations that got us there, and which were based on the orbital movement of the earth, could have done the job if the earth didn’t orbit the sun? And what about the probes we have sent for more than 40 years to other planets, again based on trajectories that assumed the orbital movement of the earth? Could all those trajectories based on such a fundamental error have worked? Please supply your mathematical proofs of your claims in this regard.

 

[MarcoPolo]

By his statement here specifically the Holy Office felt that indicating the Earth - was not the center of the world - was “contrary to Holy Scripture”. It must be held then that the Holy office felt proper exegete of Holy Scriptures would indicate that the earth is not moveable and all other heavenly bodies are.

I would like you to explain “this is a problem for me.” What do you mean by that? Do you question the faith? Do you think the Church behaved badly?

Also, if you read the statement carefully: “I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture”

So even if it were possible to declare dogma for the universal Church at a tribunal (which cannot be done at a tribunal), what the statement says is the singular notion of “sun-center/not-earth-center” is rejected. I will repeat here (knowing some here disagree with these sentiments) a summary of what I posted in another thread on this subject:*For all, here is a summary of already presented facts (and one new one) that belie the claim that the Church considered geocentrism a matter of immutable faith (and the claim by some that the Church does not have the guarantee of the Holy Spirit on faith or morals):

#1 Council of Trent (1546) - (I)n matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers…

#2 In Cardinal Bellarmine’s 1615 letter, he qualifies his comment that geocentrism is a matter of faith with: "if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe…we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated." It doesn’t matter if he admitted he didn’t foresee such a demonstration. The fact is, he admits the understanding of the Scripture could change, meaning the traditional interpretation was not immutable.

#3 So we know from Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter, geocentrism was not an immutable interpretation of Scripture. And since no doctrine is formed at a tribunal, there was no magisterial presence, it’s not a council or synod or ex cathedra statement, no definition occurred during the trial. ** The Church is open to criticism on this issue. But not criticism that it defined dogma contrary to truth nor that a matter of immutable faith was established** at this tribunal.

#4 In 1623, the newly elected Urban VIII indicated again, that a geocentrist interpretation was not a matter of immutable faith when he had his secretary write to Gallileo:* “If you would resolve to commit to print those ideas that you still have in mind*, I am quite certain that they would be most acceptable to His Holiness, who never ceases from admiring your eminence and preserves intact his attachment for you. You should not deprive the world of your productions.” He even later bought into Gallileo’s presentation but wanted Gallileo to admit God could do something contrary to science, leaving the geocentric interpretation still open to the literal before he chose to embrace the figurative. To this day, neither interpretation has been defined dogmatically. (For trivia’s sake, it should also be noted that Gallileo taught the sun was the center of the universe, which was included in the statement of Gallileo’s sentence, which modern science also considers erroneous).

There are too many exceptions surrounding this incident that show geocentrism was not considered a matter of unchangeable faith by the Church.*​

 

[sambos671]

I would like you to explain “this is a problem for me.” What do you mean by that? Do you question the faith? Do you think the Church behaved badly?

Also, if you read the statement carefully: “I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture”

So even if it were possible to declare dogma for the universal Church at a tribunal (which cannot be done at a tribunal), what the statement says is the singular notion of “sun-center/not-earth-center” is rejected. I will repeat here (knowing some here disagree with these sentiments) a summary of what I posted in another thread on this subject:*For all, here is a summary of already presented facts (and one new one) that belie the claim that the Church considered geocentrism a matter of immutable faith (and the claim by some that the Church does not have the guarantee of the Holy Spirit on faith or morals):

#1 Council of Trent* (1546) - (I)n matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers…

#2 In Cardinal Bellarmine’s 1615 letter, he qualifies his comment that geocentrism is a matter of faith with: "if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe…we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated." It doesn’t matter if he admitted he didn’t foresee such a demonstration. The fact is, he admits the understanding of the Scripture could change, meaning the traditional interpretation was not immutable.

#3 So we know from Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter, geocentrism was not an immutable interpretation of Scripture. And since no doctrine is formed at a tribunal, there was no magisterial presence, it’s not a council or synod or ex cathedra statement, no definition occurred during the trial. ** The Church is open to criticism on this issue. But not criticism that it defined dogma contrary to truth nor that a matter of immutable faith was established** at this tribunal.

#4 In 1623, the newly elected Urban VIII indicated again, that a geocentrist interpretation was not a matter of immutable faith when he had his secretary write to Gallileo:* “If you would resolve to commit to print those ideas that you still have in mind*, I am quite certain that they would be most acceptable to His Holiness, who never ceases from admiring your eminence and preserves intact his attachment for you. You should not deprive the world of your productions.” He even later bought into Gallileo’s presentation but wanted Gallileo to admit God could do something contrary to science, leaving the geocentric interpretation still open to the literal before he chose to embrace the figurative. To this day, neither interpretation has been defined dogmatically. (For trivia’s sake, it should also be noted that Gallileo taught the sun was the center of the universe, which was included in the statement of Gallileo’s sentence, which modern science also considers erroneous).

There are too many exceptions surrounding this incident that show geocentrism was not considered a matter of unchangeable faith by the Church.​

I think the church over stepped its bounds to have Galileo under house arrest and have him recant an observation.

Galileo and Capernicus for that matter both observed that the Earth was in motion around the sun. From the perspective of Motion the earth would seem to move and the Sun seem to remain still. The church wary of the implication of a scientific non-geocentrist view of the Universe moved to have Galileo silenced in this matter because ultimately they feared the conclusion would be the insignificance of Man. Where, I find to be the problem here is to say in effect “you could not have that observation because it runs contrary to scripture” When in fact it does not. There for by asserting something in the Negative the Church unwittingly is suggesting an affirmative with regard to the cosmos revolving around the earth. Which is dogmatic if this is the only permissable way of exegeting the scripture. If the Church had simply said that this observation does not reduce man’s importance to God or God’s dealing with the earth in this regard would have been appropiate. Yet this is not what the church did. In effect they said “say your observation is wrong” Or “you didn’t see what you saw”. Much like the double speak we see in Orwell’s 1984. That is the problem I am having. And still no comment on the convent of Minerva?
As far as Cardinal Bellermine’s letter if the issue were really the immutability of Scripture than why not simply have Galileo affirm Scriptures immutability with out having him recant his view of the observation that the earth moves and the sun does not? And is it really an offense to have someone arrested under?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think the church over stepped its bounds to have Galileo under house arrest and have him recant an observation.

Galileo and Capernicus for that matter both observed that the Earth was in motion around the sun. From the perspective of Motion the earth would seem to move and the Sun seem to remain still. The church wary of the implication of a scientific non-geocentrist view of the Universe moved to have Galileo silenced in this matter because ultimately they feared the conclusion would be the insignificance of Man. Where, I find to be the problem here is to say in effect “you could not have that observation because it runs contrary to scripture” When in fact it does not. There for by asserting something in the Negative the Church unwittingly is suggesting an affirmative with regard to the cosmos revolving around the earth. Which is dogmatic if this is the only permissable way of exegeting the scripture. If the Church had simply said that this observation does not reduce man’s importance to God or God’s dealing with the earth in this regard would have been appropiate. Yet this is not what the church did. In effect they said “say your observation is wrong” Or “you didn’t see what you saw”. Much like the double speak we see in Orwell’s 1984. That is the problem I am having. And still no comment on the convent of Minerva?
As far as Cardinal Bellermine’s letter if the issue were really the immutability of Scripture than why not simply have Galileo affirm Scriptures immutability with out having him recant his view of the observation that the earth moves and the sun does not? And is it really an offense to have someone arrested under?

Well, like I said, the Church is certainly open to criticism regarding their pastoral decisions on this matter. I don’t follow what is supposed to be commented on regarding the convent of Minerva?

 

[sambos671]

Well, like I said, the Church is certainly open to criticism regarding their pastoral decisions on this matter. I don’t follow what is supposed to be commented on regarding the convent of Minerva?

Why keep the goddess name on a convent? Seems to give credence to the Protestant position that god/goddess veneration by the Romans were simply translated to Saint’s who took their roles after the Roman Emperors themselves became Christian and it became vogue to be Christian. One could almost say it seems that the practice of the Vestal Virgins is still in effect with the “Convent of Minerva”. Since Vesta would have been under Minerva’s rule. Usually the European way was to rid the Pagan referrences. Yet not in this case. Why?

 

[cassini]

So a dogmatic tenet of the faith is only found in “the Vatican minutes”?! Please pardon my inability to take such a proof seriously.

Well, the sun isn’t the center of the world in any understanding I am aware of, so nobody should have a problem with this statement.

This is the crux, isn’t it. A statement by a commission, found in the Vatican minutes, that the earth moves is at least erroneous in faith. And you rest your rejection of 500 years of voluminous evidence on such a thin thread?

I’m curious, do you think we landed on the moon? If you do, do you think the trajectory calculations that got us there, and which were based on the orbital movement of the earth, could have done the job if the earth didn’t orbit the sun? And what about the probes we have sent for more than 40 years to other planets, again based on trajectories that assumed the orbital movement of the earth? Could all those trajectories based on such a fundamental error have worked? Please supply your mathematical proofs of your claims in this regard.

VociMike, All calculations for the moon are geocentric. I see no point in continuing a debate with one who doesn’t even know this.

 

[cassini]

I
#2 In Cardinal Bellarmine’s 1615 letter, he qualifies his comment that geocentrism is a matter of faith with: "if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe…we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated." It doesn’t matter if he admitted he didn’t foresee such a demonstration. The fact is, he admits the understanding of the Scripture could change, meaning the traditional interpretation was not immutable.

#3 So we know from Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter, geocentrism was not an immutable interpretation of Scripture. And since no doctrine is formed at a tribunal, there was no magisterial presence, it’s not a council or synod or ex cathedra statement, no definition occurred during the trial. ** The Church is open to criticism on this issue. But not criticism that it defined dogma contrary to truth nor that a matter of immutable faith was established** at this tribunal.

[USIZE][/INDENT]

There are too many exceptions surrounding this incident that show geocentrism was not considered a matter of unchangeable faith by the Church.

[/INDENT]

Marcopolo. If I show you how wrong you are will you have the humility to admit things may not be as the propaganda above suggests?

Bellarmine wrote the above in a letter in 1615.

The Church defined and declared a fixed sun as heresy in 1616.

How could a personal letter undermine a decision of the magisterium one year later

 

[VociMike]

VociMike, All calculations for the moon are geocentric. I see no point in continuing a debate with one who doesn’t even know this.

Oh, so the calculations do not need to take into account that the center of mass of the earth-moon system is not at the center of the earth? Should I therefore make a snarky comment about your lack of knowledge?

And what about those calculations for probes to other planets - are they geocentric also? Or did you just miss that part of my question?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Why keep the goddess name on a convent? Seems to give credence to the Protestant position that god/goddess veneration by the Romans were simply translated to Saint’s who took their roles after the Roman Emperors themselves became Christian and it became vogue to be Christian.

I did a little research on this as I was not familiar with it. The name of the convent is actually Santa Maria sopra Minerva. Which in Italian translates to St. Mary over Minerva. The “Convent of Minerva” is not its proper name. At any rate, the land upon which it was built was formerly known as the place where the pagans used to honor Minerva (although if you read the link it was apparently really for Isis). But at any rate, it seems to motive was to demonstrate how Mary is over the goddess.

My personal commentary would also be not to get caught up in these monickers that have pagan roots. For instance, we call our days of the week Monday, Saturday, Sunday, etc… These are named for pagan gods. Our continued use of the customary names in no way makes us validators of pagan worship. If a plot of land long held a pagan name, it does not mean a Church built there preserving the name of the geographic location validates the origin of the name. It would be as if some anti-Catholic became governor of St. Louis and prided himself as “Governor of St. Louis”. Does that mean he secretly has Catholic tendencies in recognizing the city’s name which bears the monicker of a saint? Of course not.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Marcopolo. If I show you how wrong you are will you have the humility to admit things may not be as the propaganda above suggests?

Bellarmine wrote the above in a letter in 1615.

The Church defined and declared a fixed sun as heresy in 1616.

How could a personal letter undermine a decision of the magisterium one year later

I would have the humility to admit I was wrong, but as I reposted in post 22 here, no dogma was defined in 1616. Dogmas are not defined at tribunals. And the Pope’s welcoming of Gallileo to express his idea again in 1623 belie the claim that his idea was immutably considered contrary to Catholic dogma after 1616. But we have been through this more than once.

 

[cassini]

I would have the humility to admit I was wrong, but as I reposted in post 22 here, no dogma was defined in 1616. Dogmas are not defined at tribunals. And the Pope’s welcoming of Gallileo to express his idea again in 1623 belie the claim that his idea was immutably considered contrary to Catholic dogma after 1616. But we have been through this more than once.

‘… “And to the end,” said the document issued under Pope Urban Viii’s orders, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index [in 1616], in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.”
And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question.
“Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”
Thus the declaration of the Index, for which all the authority of an absolutely true decision was claimed, was identified with the condemnatory judgement made known to Galileo by a Congregation held in the Pope’s presence.

 

[cassini]

Well, like I said, the Church is certainly open to criticism regarding their pastoral decisions on this matter.

Where did you get that ‘pastoral’ decision Marco, or did you invent it yourself? Do you know more than the Church? Could you have told Pope Urban VIII how to judge a decree of the Church?

This was significant enough; but mark what followed.
“And when a convenient time had been assigned you for your defence, you produced the following certificate in the handwriting of the most eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine [Here the Commission quotes Bellarmine’s letter]:

‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, …declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, … but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, …-that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move from east to west- is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.’

… procured, as you said, to protect you from the calumnies of your enemies, who had put it about that you had abjured, and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is affirmed that you had not abjured, had not been punished, but only that the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index; had been announced to you the tenor whereof is, that the doctrine of the motion of the earth, and of the fixity of the sun, is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended, nor held. “But this very certificate produced in your defence has rather aggravated the charge against you; for it asserts that the above-mentioned opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture: yet you dared to treat of it, to defend it, and advance it as probable.” Here, then, the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But Papal in what sense? In a sense, according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with those declarations and definitions, the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. Papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. And consequently that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class. From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you.
“And that this your grave and pernicious error, and transgression remain not altogether unpunished, and that you may be the more cautious for the future, and be an example to others to abstain from offences of this sort, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you for three years, to recite once a week, the seven Penitential Psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.” ’

 

[cassini]

Oh, so the calculations do not need to take into account that the center of mass of the earth-moon system is not at the center of the earth? Should I therefore make a snarky comment about your lack of knowledge?

And what about those calculations for probes to other planets - are they geocentric also? Or did you just miss that part of my question?

Yes they all are, they have to be if they take off from the earth.

 

[VociMike]

Yes they all are, they have to be if they take off from the earth.

Can you demonstrate your assertion?

 

[cassini]

Can you demonstrate your assertion?

Mike, it is my experience that ordinary folk like us, indoctrinated in heliocentric big-bangism, feel the need to defend heliocentricism just as we would defend the dogma of Christ’s resurrection. This is why you, and others, try to convince themselves that G is a redundant idea and that those who defend it must be mad and easily exposed as frauds.

To break away from defending Satan’s (a fixed sun and moving earth doctrine has been defined as heresy) position, all one has to do is have a little Catholioc humiliation and return to an objective (neutral) position first and foremost. Many find this position IMPOSSIBLE and this reflects the hold Satan has on the human intellect (Original Sin), just as a drugs have a hold on the drug addict.

So, say a Hail Mary and ask her to help you to see the truth. You will not see it unless you purge that hold on you first. If you get the grace to be objective you can now judge the merit or not of modern science.

It is a fact that one cannot tell if the sun moves relative to the earth or if the earth moves relative to the sun. From earth the sun is seen to move and if you were on the sun the earth would be seen to move. If you do not see this reality then you have not received the grace even to be objective for five minutes. Your brain REFUSES even to acknowlerdge a fact that was known even by the ancient Greeks, confirmed in writing by Copernicus, Galileo and is know by all natural philosophers of today. Now as this is a FACT, then no theory of either G or H is a fact either. This being so, ‘laws’ pertaining to H are not laws but made up laws to suit the H theory. This being so, all the data astronomers have recorded down through the ages CAN be interpreted Gally or Hally. Interpreting them Hally does not constitute proof for H, nor does interpreting them Gally constitute proof for G.

So, if man is to know the truth it HAS to be REVEALED by God Who does know the truth.
This He does in the Bible and the Church defined and declared this fact.

But getting back even to a neutral position let me answer your question. Because we live on earth, then all calculations for space flight HAVE to be geocentric. Geocentric means calculating things from HERE on earth. The movement of the moon has nothing to do with G or H. When we send space probes to other planets from earth the calculations as to where the planets will be at the time the probes get there can be done either geocentrically or heliocentrically. H or G calculations do not get man one inch closer to knowing if the sun moves or the earth moves. They are only ways to calculate movements.

Most folk fully accept without investigating that the heliocentric system is the one used for all astronomical predictions and calculations. Well most folk are wrong then. When it comes to working out eclipses etc., it is the geocentric reality mathematics that is used. But watch how they play mind-games when admitting this:

‘For this purpose [making calculations] it is convenient first to consider the earth as fixed and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre…’— Encyclopedia Britannica (Eclipse, p.869).

Here Mike is the propaganda at its best. See they admit calculations are geocentric but get you keep thinking in the heliocentric mode.

 

[sambos671]

So then there is dogmatic issues with the Church with regard to its teaching and the scientific discovery that Galileo had to recant.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So then there is dogmatic issues with the Church with regard to its teaching and the scientific discovery that Galileo had to recant.

According to some, yes. According to the Church and God, no.

 

[VociMike]

I’m going to step back a bit and try to see where my understanding fails, so I’ll ask a few questions.

1. Do the earth and the sun exert equal and opposite gravitational attractions upon each other?
2. Does F=ma apply to both the earth and the sun?
3. Does the earth therefore experience an acceleration due to the gravitational attraction of the sun?
4. Does the earth move in response to this acceleration?

And finally, if geocentrism is true,

1. What causes the sun to revolve about the earth?

 

[hecd2]

VociMIke:

And what about those calculations for probes to other planets - are they geocentric also? Or did you just miss that part of my question?

Yes they all are, they have to be if they take off from the earth.

Do you have a authoritative source that shows that NASA always uses the geocentric frame? If they are putting up earth satellites, they might well do, but they do not for interplanetary missions such as the Cassini-Huygens Saturn probe. In that case they might use a geocentric frame for the launch, but can you imagine any idiot using a geocentric frame to calculate the interplanetary trajectory (never mind the complete idiocy of using a geostatic frame)?

You have been corrected about this before, so what you are doing here is indulging in wilful ignorance or worse.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

But getting back even to a neutral position let me answer your question. Because we live on earth, then all calculations for space flight HAVE to be geocentric.

But they are not, and you have been corrected about this, so you are either indulging in wilful ignorance or something worse.

Alec
evolutionpages.com