Mendel and the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billcu1

Guest
I really had no idea where to put this. I have in reading genetics always wondered if Gregor Mendel was considered a heretic or in any way advised by the church to repent. In his day and even earlier science was of course the work of the devil as was any thinking seen independent of the church. 🤷 I know there was a ishop that was an alchemist. And of course the name “Basil Valentine” was probably a pen name for a believed monk. Would anyone hapene to know anything about Mendel and the church ?
 
FrenzyJen said:
What?? Why would he be??
Click to expand...
Well not understanding what he was trying to say. Darwin is frowned upon for some reason. I really don’t know how much of what he said has not been added to by others. Mendel was the 19th century too. Why was Gaileo a heretic ?
 
billcu1 said:
believed monk.
Click to expand...
What’s that?

Never heard of Mendel being in hot water for learning about plants. What would have have to repent?

He certainly wasn’t the first to study genetics & heredity.
 
billcu1 said:
I really had no idea where to put this. I have in reading genetics always wondered if Gregor Mendel was considered a heretic or in any way advised by the church to repent. In his day and even earlier science was of course the work of the devil as was any thinking seen independent of the church. 🤷 I know there was a ishop that was an alchemist. And of course the name “Basil Valentine” was probably a pen name for a believed monk. Would anyone hapene to know anything about Mendel and the church ?
Click to expand...
No, Mendel had no problems with the Church. He was really much more a scholar than most science textbooks give him credit for. The common misconception is of a simple monk noticing some strange facts about pea plants in the monastery’s garden, and writing down some observations.

In reality, he had his Abbots’s approval for his study and over 7 years cultivated more than 28,000 plants on the 2 hectare experimental garden at the monastery. He presented scientific papers on his findings. Unfortunately, most of his papers languished in obscurity, and all his findings were independently rediscovered decades later.

It’s too bad Darwin didn’t read the papers, genetics might have been 30 years more advanced now if he had.
 
A) Evolution is a disallowed topic, so tread lightly.

B). The Catholic Church never involved itself in the anti-evolution debate anyhow.

ICXC NIKA
 
I admittedly know little about Mendel, other than what I have read in passing, but FWIW, here’s a short summary by Mike Flynn:

People sometimes wonder where Mendel found the time to do all this, considering his monastic responsiblities. I have even seen it alleged that the abbot shut him down, a nice example of “model-based history”*. But the answer is easy. His research was one of his monastic responsibilities. The monastery had been conducting hybridization research even before Mendel arrived. The Augustinians freed up his time for the research, allocated large plots of land for his research, and built a greenhouse where he could establish a control group for his studies. The Order did not sorta kinda “give Mendel a research grant” to pursue his personal hobby as some historically ill-informed have grudgingly allowed: The research was part and parcel of the Order’s program. Mendel himself had trained as a physicist, not a biologist, so this would not likely have been his own personal choice. Mendel was simply doing the scientific research that his Order asked him to do.**

Mendel’s results were published in the* Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn* in 1866. No-one noticed. Over the next 35 years, his work was cited… three times! Oh well. In the early 1900s, Mendel’s work was rediscovered by Correns, deVries, and others, and developed into an entirely new discipline within biology – genetics.

*model-based history. This is where one starts with an idee fixe and deduces “what must have happened” in the light of that prior assumption. This dispenses with the laborious requirement for actual empirical evidence.

** Oddly, Mendel’s work and the support from his Order are seldom mentioned during debates about church-science relationships. See first note (*).

tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/10/de-evolutione-evolutionis.html

As for Galileo, from the same author quoted above:

The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown
 
As far as i know there was special dispensation for Mendel to get out of his daily choes in order to continue his science.

Mendel studied physics at university and most universities were backed by the church so there is a positive relationship between church and science, not a negative one.

You might want to also look at Roger Boscovich, Nicholas Steno, Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridean, Alberto Magnus, Georges Le Maitre, Robert Grosseteste, Gerbert of Aurillac, Matteo Ricci and Nicolaus Coernicus.

Also the free ebook

The popes and science

Regards.
 
Modern universities as we know them only exist because of the Catholic Church! The Church encouraged Mendel. In regards to Darwin, there is only an issue if God’s ultimate role is rejected - I don’t think the Church ever had an issue with his science and multiple popes have, since at least the mid-20th century, affirmed that there is no contradiction between biological evolution and the faith.
Gallileo was a heretic because he openly and explicitly challenged scripture declaring it to be in error.
 
GEddie said:
A) Evolution is a disallowed topic, so tread lightly.

B). The Catholic Church never involved itself in the anti-evolution debate anyhow.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Thanks for that warning. Personally I think creation’s purpose is to evolve and change. Why else would there be a need from creation? Kinda confused on the Darwin thing, but alas as you say. OT in the forum. I’m done there.
 
twf said:
Modern universities as we know them only exist because of the Catholic Church! The Church encouraged Mendel. In regards to Darwin, there is only an issue if God’s ultimate role is rejected - I don’t think the Church ever had an issue with his science and multiple popes have, since at least the mid-20th century, affirmed that there is no contradiction between biological evolution and the faith.
Gallileo was a heretic because he openly and explicitly challenged scripture declaring it to be in error.
Click to expand...
I see. I didn’t know he challenged scripture. I believe that’s what got Luther in trouble right off the start with what would be protestantism.
 
Duane1966 said:
You might be interested in this answer about Galileo. astronomynotes.com/history/GalileoAffair.html
Click to expand...
So heliocentric ideology was not out of line with the Church? The concept of man being at the center of the universe is not flawed. Meaning God and the universe is in man. “We are in the Father and the Father is in us.” Although it isn’t as they learned, literally true as for the Earth being in the center of the bodies.

Am I not quite clear on the problem here?
 
I think all the times when the Church had a problem with a scientist who actually said legitimate things, it was because of some other issue. From what I heard also the Galileo issue was more complex. I think its also a rumour that the Church considered science to be “the devils work” in the middle ages or later. Many universities were actually from the Church.
 
billcu1 said:
Could the church make an infallible decision on something concerning science? I would think it would have to be a church matter. Why would the church be interested in this anyway. In Galileo’s situation?
Click to expand...
The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences and a Vatican Observatory.

From Catholic Answers:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

vaticanobservatory.va/content/specolavaticana/en.html

The Church is concerned with science at every level, especially as it involves man.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences and a Vatican Observatory.

From Catholic Answers:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

vaticanobservatory.va/content/specolavaticana/en.html

The Church is concerned with science at every level, especially as it involves man.

Ed
Click to expand...
Oh I see. The fossil record and tectonic plate shifts show an age in some degree of time. But maybe the church isn’t sure on that one. I was aware of the observatory but not the academy of sciences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top