J
Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
He was not just any atheist… He was for a long time the atheist representative.
He followed the evidence where it led. Try it.
B
buffalo
Guest
IDvolution is very real. It is the intersection between faith and reason.
M
mark_a
Guest
The Church has every right to approve or disapprove whatever is taught in the name of the Church.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Wan:
Well, I might be the last man standing, but, I, for one, sure hope you’re wrong!
God bless,
jd
B
buffalo
Guest
wanstronian - this is your play book?
Educators guide to dealing with Intelligent Design
The troublesome issue of intelligent design (known simply as ID) is one that every science educator needs to be prepared to deal with. The issue threatens our society on several levels. For example, how can our nation hope to compete in an increasingly technological world unless our budding new scientists believe life is a purposeless cosmic accident? The very integrity of science is in danger. In fact, the continued existence of civilization might be at stake.
True science must always provide purely naturalistic answers, not simply follow the evidence where it leads. Unless we restrain the range of acceptable answers to scientific problems, we cannot guarantee appropriate, scientific conclusions. Such is our duty as educators. The following suggestions should make your job of shaping young minds somewhat easier.
Educators guide to dealing with Intelligent Design
The troublesome issue of intelligent design (known simply as ID) is one that every science educator needs to be prepared to deal with. The issue threatens our society on several levels. For example, how can our nation hope to compete in an increasingly technological world unless our budding new scientists believe life is a purposeless cosmic accident? The very integrity of science is in danger. In fact, the continued existence of civilization might be at stake.
True science must always provide purely naturalistic answers, not simply follow the evidence where it leads. Unless we restrain the range of acceptable answers to scientific problems, we cannot guarantee appropriate, scientific conclusions. Such is our duty as educators. The following suggestions should make your job of shaping young minds somewhat easier.
- Be vague about what exactly is meant by the word “evolution”. Use the term in the most expansive way when referring to support for or the importance of the theory (“evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence” or “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” ). You can imply that any kind of evolution (cosmological, chemical, biological) is strongly supported by the evidence, but when pressed to defend this, drop back to the less significant but well-proven things like antibiotic resistance.
C
cassini
Guest
Oh yeh, ever heard of relativity, reintroduced into science by Einstein in 1905 (to get the earth moving again after the 1887 M&M experiment failed to find the supposed 67,000MPH orbit of the Earth)? Well if you haven’t then it is you who doesn’t understand science.
Science cannot determine if the earth moves relative to the sun, or if the sun moves relative to the earth. That was decided by majority vote, not by science.
So how could you say Galileo was 100% correct? After Einstein, science now must hold the Church of 1616 could be correct.
Galileo never said ‘it still moves’, that was invented well after his death.
C
cassini
Guest
Just to put the record straight Buffalo:
On January 17th 2008, the Galileo case returned to test Pope Benedict XVI this time. On that day 67 professors of physics – in their commitment to what they called ‘lay science’ - objected to him going to the University of La Sapienza in Rome to deliver a speech. They accused the Holy Father, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, of agreeing with a philosopher he quoted in a 1991 essay who said the Galileo trial was ‘reasonable and fair’. This incident, which became headline news on TV and all the daily newspapers around the world, and which was hotly debated on the Internet, caused the Pope to cancel his intended visit to the University, shows the influence the Galileo case can still generate today. Within days, Vatican cardinals were insisting the Pope held no such opinion, inferring of course that the Pontiff agreed with the 67 professors in La Sapienza, that the Church trial of Galileo was unreasonable and unfair. The following Sunday, 200,000 sympathisers converged on St Peter’s Square to support their pope no matter what position he held.
And here is what Vatican II said:
‘We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they [who opposed Galileo] have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ — Gaudium et spes.
And here is what Pope John Paul II said:
Referring to the Galileo case (1992), Pope John Paul II took his cue from Gaudium et spes and began by saying Galileo ‘had to suffer a great deal at the hands of men and organisms of the Church.’
‘The pope’s statement was more than an admission of error, and seemed to be an admission of wrongdoing. Even an admission of error would have been significant since it was completely unprecedented for a pope to make such a statement…To speak of Galileo’s “suffering” as the pope did implies that his treatment was undeserved or illegitimate. Moreover, the pope implicitly called his treatment an instance of unwarranted interference…In fact the condemnation of Galileo was itself being condemned.’ —Maurice A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, University of California Press, 2007, p.340.
Church of 1616 and 1633 then - own goal.
In favour of Galileo - 3 goals.
C
cassini
Guest
On BBC Sunday, in their story of the Vatican, they had this astronomer priest on view telling all of his quest looking for Aliens. It seems to me he needs a rest from looking for extra-terrestrials. Anyone involved in this **USELESS **exercise is ‘of this world’ and science is their god. Any priest who wastes his time looking for extra Ts should be ashamed of himself. Better he did something a little more Catholic with his time. What he has to say about the Church and Galileo should be taken with a spoon of moon-dust. He actually said on TV if he met an exter-T he would ask IT if it wanted baptism. Talk about bringing Catholicism into the realm of fairy tales.
B
Brendan
Guest
But then Cardinal Ratzinger would have been correct. The Church WAS more open to Reason than Galileo himself.
Galileo’s theory, like any theory, should provide for experimental evidence. The two items where Galileo’s theory, if correct, should have shown differences were in the areas of Stellar Paralax and Planetary Retrograte.
If the Earth did move around the Sun, there should be a shift in the positions of the stars when viewed at different times of the year. That was not detected ( and could not as no one, including Galileo, knew how incredibly far the stars actually were away from the Sun).
In addition, a correct model of planetary motion should have been able to predict Planetary Retrograde, when Mars and Jupiter appear to move backwards.
Galileo used a circular model to describe planetary movement ( he used circles for the orbits), and thus his model was actually worse than the existing models for predicting retrograde.
So yes, the Church was quite correct to restrict his model to theoretical discussion, instead of declaring it to be a discriptor of what was actually happening.
Any science journal today would do the same thing if the experimental evidence was as far off as Galileo’s.
Galileo’s theory, like any theory, should provide for experimental evidence. The two items where Galileo’s theory, if correct, should have shown differences were in the areas of Stellar Paralax and Planetary Retrograte.
If the Earth did move around the Sun, there should be a shift in the positions of the stars when viewed at different times of the year. That was not detected ( and could not as no one, including Galileo, knew how incredibly far the stars actually were away from the Sun).
In addition, a correct model of planetary motion should have been able to predict Planetary Retrograde, when Mars and Jupiter appear to move backwards.
Galileo used a circular model to describe planetary movement ( he used circles for the orbits), and thus his model was actually worse than the existing models for predicting retrograde.
So yes, the Church was quite correct to restrict his model to theoretical discussion, instead of declaring it to be a discriptor of what was actually happening.
Any science journal today would do the same thing if the experimental evidence was as far off as Galileo’s.
V
Vixit
Guest
It’s about time!
R
reggieM
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
As a matter of general information for readers,
the Catholic Church is holy because within it is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Eucharist.
It is important to keep things straight. When people chose a wrong moral action, that action did not change the holiness of the Catholic Church because, in spite of everything, Jesus Christ remains present within His Church. When talking about the church and morality, it is important to remember who is making the choice.
B
buffalo
Guest
How many of these did wanstronian, moonstruck and the like hit on?:bigyikes:
Very good.
G
grannymh
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Intelligent Design is Enemy Number One for Leftists and Anarchists. As often as Popes get quoted here to promote a particular theory, ID is a major threat. Why? It mixes chocolate and peanut butter - God and Science. After all that effort to get religion out of public schools, here’s ID going for the public heart and mind. It must be stopped!! It must! It must!
gasp… wheeze…
Keep your religion away from my science!
God bless,
Ed
gasp… wheeze…
Keep your religion away from my science!
God bless,
Ed
W
wanstronian
Guest
That’s a big “if.” Seems to me that his conversion was a result of the good ol’ argument from ignorance. A failure of critical thinking for one reason or another.
W
wanstronian
Guest
More semantics. Okay, substitute ‘prove’ with ‘show beyond any reasonable doubt.’
Yet its influence is waning. People are thinking for themselves more and more. Heresy is no longer a crime. It’s no longer outrageous to declare oneself an atheist. In short, critical thinking is on the rise, so religious belief will decline as a natural result.
Slowly, it is, and we are breaking free from the chains of outmoded religious dogma.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Whatever. His ‘conversion’ is mired in controversy, and in any event one bloke changing his mind doesn’t mean that he’s right.
He was not just any atheist… He was for a long time the atheist representative.
I have. The evidence I’ve seen leads nowhere. Maybe there’s some ‘evidence’ I’ve missed - what would you suggest is the most convincing?
W
wanstronian
Guest
Reason and religious faith are mutually exclusive.
If IDvolution is real, why do you appear to be the only person who knows about it? As far as I can make out, you invented the term. Which means that I can invent the word, “hgrapphy”, and assert that it’s very real, and is the intersection between philately and sky-diving.
But maybe I’m getting ahead of myself. Please present your peer-reviewed thesis on IDvolution, complete with its citations, experimental methods, predicted and actual results, falsification and verification criteria, and publication references.
- Status