Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper
Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | 01/19/06 | Tom Heneghan

Posted on 01/19/2006 1:33:32 PM PST by peyton randolph

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion...

A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: catholic; creationisminadress; dover; fsm; id; idiocy; idisjunkscience; ignoranceisstrength; science; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-606 next last
To: Fester Chugabrew

No, I didn't get religion when I realized just how well-designed my Bose Lifestyles system was; I can actually understand the technology that made it so, and I can speak to the people who designed it.

People who believe in a non-religious concept of Intelligent Design must then believe in all-powerful extraterrestrials capable of creating not only life, the universe, and everything as we know it today, but themselves.

The vast majority of ID supporters would immediately call these people "kooks."


551 posted on 01/22/2006 8:05:17 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: xmission

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm


552 posted on 01/22/2006 8:13:29 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

In your own words (I assume you have some, no cheating) tell me what you have against paul, and why.


553 posted on 01/22/2006 8:56:55 AM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"They were people who only knew of a very small part of the total world..."

And we are SO much smarter now!

Not at all. You appear to be confusing ignorance with stupidity. They were just as smart as we are. But they didn't have the access to knowledge and education that we have. That was their misfortune, not stupidity. They didn't know that there are upwards of 20 million species, many of which have highly particular requirements for diet and environment. This is hardly surprising for people who were essentially nomadic shepherds who wandered a very tiny area of the world. It is instructive that there is little sense of a wider world outside the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean in the Bible.

554 posted on 01/22/2006 9:18:00 AM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Faith is BY DEFINITION a belief where evidence is lacking.

It can be, but that is not its fundamental meaning. It's primary meaning is "confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." As such, faith requires evidence, just like science does. That is what I am talking about when I say faith must be capable of testing, just like science. But there are certain statements and assumptions that cannot be tested for their veracity one of them is as follows: "Science can only observe natural phenomena."

555 posted on 01/22/2006 9:52:01 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

Faith may on occasion be blind, but such faith is rare. Scientific theories may be blind as well. They, too, are rare.


556 posted on 01/22/2006 9:55:23 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Still no means for science to investigate God. You're hopeless Fester. Just give it up. And I am through with this one-sided conversation. Again I say, GOOD DAY.
557 posted on 01/22/2006 9:58:36 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Still no means for science to investigate God.

It is not a matter of directly observing, but indirect observation and inference, just like most of science. Most of science, in all its details, may be undertaken with the assumption that God created the heavens and the earth and still sustains them. As such, most of science is inclined to expect an orderly universe to investigate, because an intelligent designer would normally be considered to produce an intelligible object. Science must deal with intelligible data.

But what can be said for the givens with which you believe science ought to operate? If intelligent design is not the given with which you do science, then what is? Unintelligent non-design? Zelda's wrath? Or do you pretend you have no "givens?"

You're right it has been largely a one-sided conversation. You've left the lion's share of my questions unanswered. That's okay. I've grown used to it.

If science leads to theological implications, why must science discard a theological answer? How does it logically follow? Or is it just because you think the constitution to forbid such ideas? As I've said, and continue to maintain, you are no champion of free inquiry, (let alone a free repbulic) but a misguided proponent of an ideology. Take heart. You're not alone. You've got Laurence Tribe on your side. Stalin. Marx. Just to name a few.

558 posted on 01/22/2006 10:30:32 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

I said the conversation was over. You have answered nothing.

GOOD DAY.


559 posted on 01/22/2006 10:35:00 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
And I am through with this one-sided conversation.

If all else fails you've always got those voices in your head to lead you into all truth. :)

560 posted on 01/22/2006 10:38:47 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Go away Fester. You're beneath me.

GOOD DAY!


561 posted on 01/22/2006 10:39:51 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

You would have been better off to take the advice and practice of your cheerleaders to heart and never attempted to refute intelligent design as a viable explanation for organized matter, and as a viable alternative to evolutionist notions. The case for intelligent design is not only logical but also legal anywhere in this country a person cares to espouse or teach it.


562 posted on 01/22/2006 10:46:06 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"What does this mean... "This conversation is over." Hmmm, I'll just ignore it like I ignore everything!!"


563 posted on 01/22/2006 10:49:03 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

So then, it is your understanding of something that causes it to change from "religious" to "non-religious" status. I see.


564 posted on 01/22/2006 10:52:52 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I did enjoy the, ughhh, discussion? As best I can glean, the argument (if you want to call it that) is that 'organized matter' (as opposed to 'unorganized matter, whatever that is, or nothing, I guess) was discovered by science and that 'organized matter' is proof of God (and is supernatural to boot).

I once ran into a street corner preacher in the night club district in Chicago saying about the same thing to whoever walking by might listen, at about 11 PM on a Friday night.

I suppose if scientists had discovered only 'unorganized matter' (whatever that would be) and no 'organized matter' whatsoever, they would have disproved God. LOL.

Basically, it seems the argument is that the existence of anything scientifically proves God, or something like that.
565 posted on 01/22/2006 11:19:35 AM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: Grand Voyageur
"However, I must admit it would be pretty cool if we could prove that a superior being or race of supernatural aliens created everything. Sounds a little like Scientology to me though."

Despite there being no evidence of that either, God yet allows this universe to function.

566 posted on 01/22/2006 12:47:37 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: js1138
... a Christian scientist.

Hey!

That's a MORON of the OXY type!!!

567 posted on 01/22/2006 1:05:39 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Faith is tested by inferential and deductive illogic. That which cannot be true in light of our intellectual faculties, is accepted as true nevertheless on the basis of faith.

Scientific propositions are tested by the inverse of this test for faith. And the two, proceeding as they must in polar opposite directions, cannot meet in the middle.

Heck of an assertion here. Too bad it's wrong.

568 posted on 01/22/2006 1:07:42 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
People who believe in a non-religious concept of Intelligent Design must then believe in all-powerful extraterrestrials capable of creating not only life, the universe, and everything as we know it today, but themselves.

The vast majority of ID supporters would immediately call these people "kooks."

Well, speaking for me, I'd call them atheists; for they would NEVER claim that GOD did it.

569 posted on 01/22/2006 1:09:27 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: xmission
In your own words (I assume you have some, no cheating) tell me what you have against paul, and why.

If I were asked to read his mind (and I wasn't) then I'd say Paul gets dissed because of the very same reason as
when he was alive on earth:

those who think you need to follow the LAW!!!!



NIV Acts 13:47-51
 47.  For this is what the Lord has commanded us: "`I have made you  a light for the Gentiles, that you  may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.' "
 48.  When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
 49.  The word of the Lord spread through the whole region.
 50.  But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.
 51.  So they shook the dust from their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium.
 

NIV Acts 15:1-2
 1.  Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."
 2.  This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
 

NIV Acts 16:19-22
 19.  When the owners of the slave girl realized that their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the authorities.
 20.  They brought them before the magistrates and said, "These men are Jews, and are throwing our city into an uproar
 21.  by advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice."
 22.  The crowd joined in the attack against Paul and Silas, and the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten.
.
.
 35.  When it was daylight, the magistrates sent their officers to the jailer with the order: "Release those men."
 36.  The jailer told Paul, "The magistrates have ordered that you and Silas be released. Now you can leave. Go in peace."
 37.  But Paul said to the officers: "They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out."
 

NIV Acts 17:4-8
 4.  Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.
 5.  But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason's house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd.
 6.  But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here,
 7.  and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus."
 8.  When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown into turmoil.
 

NIV Acts 18:12-16
 12.  While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him into court.
 13.  "This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."
 14.  Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, "If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you.
 15.  But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law--settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things."
 16.  So he had them ejected from the court.
 17.  Then they all turned on Sosthenes the synagogue ruler and beat him in front of the court. But Gallio showed no concern whatever.
 

NIV Acts 18:28
   For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
 

NIV Acts 19:8-9
 8.  Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.
 9.  But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.
 
NIV Acts 20:19
   I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews.
 

NIV Acts 21:27-32
 27.  When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him,
 28.  shouting, "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place."
 29.  (They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area.)
 30.  The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut.
 31.  While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar.
 32.  He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.
 

NIV Acts 22:19-25
 19.  "`Lord,' I replied, `these men know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you.
 20.  And when the blood of your martyr  Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.'
 21.  "Then the Lord said to me, `Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'"
 22.  The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!"
 23.  As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air,
 24.  the commander ordered Paul to be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be flogged and questioned in order to find out why the people were shouting at him like this.
 25.  As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, "Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?"
 

NIV Acts 23:12-15
 12.  The next morning the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul.
 13.  More than forty men were involved in this plot.
 14.  They went to the chief priests and elders and said, "We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul.
 15.  Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here."
 

NIV Acts 24:5-9
 5.  "We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect
 6.  and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him.
 8.  By  examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him."
 9.  The Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true.

 
It's still true TODAY!!!
 
NIV Acts 24:8
  By  examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him."


570 posted on 01/22/2006 1:35:34 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
...only 'unorganized matter' (whatever that would be)...

The stuff in the back of the 'fridge, or the things under the bed.

571 posted on 01/22/2006 1:37:34 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

In what way?


572 posted on 01/22/2006 1:57:15 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

Comment #573 Removed by Moderator

To: Elsie

Like THIS?? (NIV references at 1 Peter 1:17-21; 1 Cor. 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:8-10 and Titus 1:1-4)

Actually better like this ----

1Pe 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,...

1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:...

2 Timothy 1:8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:...

Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

"Just how did these ignurt goat-herders have such a concept as 'before time' anyway???"

They each had direct revelation from the Creator of the entire universe!


574 posted on 01/23/2006 5:26:54 AM PST by Free Baptist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: Dewy

"Does it really matter what any Church, Pastor, Priest or Pope says??? It's best to know the Word. Then when you hear your pastor, priest, or pope you can say amen, and know what is truth. If your pastor, priest , or pope doesn't speak truth get rid of him or leave and go where truth is preached.

"As far as I can tell we still have the Bible and it is Gods' word.

"To the Christian: John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

Correct. Sanctified through the the truth, and it is God's Word that is truth.

There is NO sanctification through any particular church or denomination of them, and NO sanctification through any sinner, including those of us who are called by our Redeemer to be preachers of the Gospel of Grace. Any true Gospel preacher will tell you to make the written Final Authority of God, the Bible, the judge OVER the preacher, priest, bishop, pope, other.


575 posted on 01/23/2006 5:31:59 AM PST by Free Baptist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
It means your biblical 'Eve' has to be older than mitochondrial Eve - much older.

You're mistaking Catholics for Biblical Fundamentalists.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

III. ORIGINAL SIN

Freedom put to the test

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

Man's first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church's Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man's history:

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288
The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

A hard battle. . .

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails "captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil".298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.

408 The consequences of original sin and of all men's personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John's expression, "the sin of the world".300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men's sins.301

409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man's life a battle:

The whole of man's history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God's grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303

That pushes the genetic bottleneck back to maybe half a million years.

Maybe.

At that stage, were we human?

I don't know, were we? There doesn't seem to be any evidence of evolution in the fossil record, as Darwin predicted there would be. The fossil record should demonstrate gradual change as a rule, yet it demonstrates species passing into and out of existence unchanged, as a rule.

Could Homo erectus have had a chat with a snake, or with Adam?

Is Homo erectus a different species than man? If so, how is this proof of evolution, rather than stasis? Isn't this just another ambiguous piece of fossil evidence, like Archaeopteryx?

And is it likely a viable species could be derived from two individuals?

Why wouldn't it be?

576 posted on 01/23/2006 5:42:34 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Faith is tested by inferential and deductive illogic. ---  Oh, THIS WAY....
 
That which cannot be true in light of our intellectual faculties, is accepted as true nevertheless on the basis of faith. ---  Oh, THIS WAY....

Scientific propositions are tested by the inverse of this test for faith. ---  Oh, THIS WAY....

And the two, proceeding as they must in polar opposite directions, cannot meet in the middle.---  and finally, THIS WAY!

 

 


577 posted on 01/23/2006 5:49:49 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Since I was brought up Catholic, I didn't need the Catechism dump, thanks.

I don't know, were we? There doesn't seem to be any evidence of evolution in the fossil record, as Darwin predicted there would be.

Let me quote this to you from memory. A lie is always sinful and nothing can excuse it.

You've been on these threads enough to know what you posted has been rebutted repeatedly.

578 posted on 01/23/2006 7:09:08 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Since I was brought up Catholic, I didn't need the Catechism dump, thanks.

Either you don't understand that Catholics aren't biblical Fundamentalists, or you chose to argue that position for some reason.

You've been on these threads enough to know what you posted has been rebutted repeatedly.

I can see how someone could believe that if if he had an a priori commitment to materialism and or Darwinism. I don't, so I see the supposed evidence as ambiguous, at best.

579 posted on 01/23/2006 7:36:54 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
. . .'organized matter' is proof of God.

You misrepresent my arguments. They may be summarized as follows: One may reasonably infer intelligent design from the presence of organized matter. Science may take place and be taught both logically and legally while using as a given the assumption that God created the heavens and the earth and still sustains them. Science need not prove the existence of God to work under this assumption any more than it needs to prove God is beyond its purview.

580 posted on 01/23/2006 7:50:28 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: gopgen; linear

I'm noticing a shift in the spin of the evolution proponents. They are still just as strong on common descent, but getting a lot softer on the mechanism.


581 posted on 01/23/2006 10:16:27 AM PST by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Well, gee Elsie. Not much of a response.

How else do you propose that faith be tested if not against that which would otherwise be unfathomable to our sense of logic or our perceptions? How else, for example, was the faith and integrity of Job to be tested except through the illogic of great affliction on an otherwise blameless and upright man?

And how else do you propose that scientific propositions be tested except against the the inverse of this test for faith -- i.e., against that which our logic and our perceptions tell us should be so?
582 posted on 01/23/2006 10:55:06 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: Grand Voyageur
"I guess it's completely pointless to ask for any evidence...."

Not really. Though by its nature subjective, I'd cite the creation of the universe from nothing, the fact that reproduction in species couldn't have "evolved" but had to be "programmed" in from inception, and the appearance of the eye in each phylum, fully developed, for which there are no predecessors in the fossil record.

I really love science and the scientific method. It only compliments religion.

583 posted on 01/23/2006 1:37:06 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
the fact that reproduction in species couldn't have "evolved" but had to be "programmed" in from inception,

Huh? Reproduction is part of any definition of life.

Perhaps you are having trouble imaging how to get from bacterial-style fission to sexual reproduction. Definitely a hard problem, not completely solved yet. Here's some speculation on the topic.

Keep in mind that bacteria exchange DNA, but it's not related to reproduction. Also learn about the reproductive cycles of the protista. Some of these do not have the same sort of meiosis as other eukaryotes, and probably give a clue about some of the steps involved in the evolution of meiosis.

So, your claim "...the fact that reproduction in species couldn't have "evolved"..." is not a fact; there is no reason to suppose sexual reproduction and meiosis couldn't have evolved, and there is active research trying to pin down all the steps involved.

584 posted on 01/23/2006 6:10:15 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
"Keep in mind that bacteria exchange DNA, but it's not related to reproduction.

"...and there is active research trying to pin down all the steps involved.

Well, DNA exchange by any other name yet seems "reproduction" to me. And neither did sexual reproduction "evolve" from any predecessor, by the fossil record.

As much as I respect the sophistication of your argument, I'll stand by mine.

Thanks.

585 posted on 01/23/2006 6:30:32 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: highball

I never said the Church handled it properly (in my opinion). All I pointed out is that the Church wasn't "anti-science," it was "pro-truth." Galileo couldn't convince his scientific contemporaries, let alone the Church, that what he was teaching as fact WAS fact. He had compelling evidence, yes; Newton is the one that had the PROOF. Galileo had a Hypothesis (a hypothesis which included that the orbits are circular, rather than elliptical-as Kepler proved- and that tides are caused by the movement of the Earth and not the Moon)...


586 posted on 01/24/2006 3:54:42 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

In this age of satellites and Hubble telescopes, you ask what other proof there has been?

As I mentioned, the viewing of parallaxes pretty much settled the case.


587 posted on 01/24/2006 4:27:15 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Except that Copernican theory requires a parallax, a phenomenon whereby a star seems to shift in position as the Earth moves. Kind of like if I were to hold up a ball directly in front of my face and you were to stand on my left--the ball would obscure my right ear; if you then shifted positions to my right (as the Earth might in orbit) the ball would obscure my left ear. Stars would, in the Copernican model, shift in relation to other stars. Distance also works into the equation--if the Earth is moving, the distance would change, however minutely.

It is OK to call it a fact--the Earth revolves around the Sun. There will not be any other evidence that shows otherwise, unless we get into wormholes or quantum theory or some other such discussion. Satellites revolve. Are you telling me that we can't have any other experiments to set as FACT or LAW that the Earth revolves, and so thus it is a "theory"?
Mind you, I don't dispute the definition of a theory--I don't confuse it with hypothesis. But you are saying that it is supported by evidence and makes useful predictions but is not conclusively proven? Forgive me if I sound incredulous, but I fail to understand your argument--the Earth has been "evidenced" to revolve around the Sun, not "proven"? Please clarify...


588 posted on 01/24/2006 4:34:15 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
1) The Inquisition was to root out people within the Church. Persecution of Jews or witches is another matter entirely. Heresy is teaching something other than accepted doctrine or beliefs; of course Jews or whomever had different beliefs, and taught them. The Inquisition was aimed at Catholics (and even then was not nearly on the scale that modern historians like to make it seem).

2) So since there "never will be absolute proof for a scientific theory," then we HAVEN'T proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Galileo had a HYPOTHESIS. His HYPOTHESIS had to be proven, something he couldn't definitively do, which Newton did, and more advanced telescopes proved. So if his "theory" can't be proven...what, we don't revolve around the Sun, or we need more evidence, or it is something that can be DISproven?

3) I never said he had no evidence, I said he couldn't PROVE it. He had evidence, and quite compelling evidence at that. Had he stuck with THAT, and laid it out as a HYPOTHESIS, there never would've been any issue. But he taught as FACT that which he could not prove WAS fact.

4) I fail to see the issue--the Church, acting within its power (Galileo submitted himself to it, after all) both theologically, in interpreting the scriptures, and legally (as we have already discussed) told Galileo to not teach as fact that which was hypothesis. Copernicus' ideas were well known and were not scorned or forbidden until Galileo started teaching them as fact--something that wouldn't be definitively proven for some time. End of story.

5) Again bringing up the intro that someone ELSE wrote? Or are you speaking of the intro in which he dedicated De Revolutionibus" to Pope Paul III?

I can readily imagine, Holy Father, that as soon as some people hear that in this volume, which I have written about the revolutions of the spheres of the universe, I ascribe certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will shout that I must be immediately repudiated together with this belief For I am not so enamored of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them. I am aware that a philosopher's ideas are not subject to the judgement of ordinary persons, because it is his endeavor to seek the truth in all things, to the extent permitted to human reason by God. Yet I hold that completely erroneous views should be shunned. Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heaven as its center would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves. Therefore I debated with myself for a long time whether to publish the volume which I wrote to prove the earth's motion or rather to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to transmit philosophy's secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in writing but by word of mouth, as is shown by Lysis' letter to Hipparchus. And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose, because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed these considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account of the novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to abandon completely the work which I had undertaken.

But while I hesitated for a long time and even resisted, my friends drew me back. Foremost among them was the cardinal of Capua, Nicholas Schönberg, renowned in every field of learning. Next to him was a man who loves me dearly, Tiedemann Giese, bishop of Chelmno, a close student of sacred letters as well as of all good literature. For he repeatedly encouraged me and, sometimes adding reproaches, urgently requested me to publish this volume and finally permit it to appear after being buried among my papers and lying concealed not merely until the ninth year but by now the fourth period of nine years. The same conduct was recommended to me by not a few other very eminent scholars. They exhorted me no longer to refuse, on account of the fear which I felt, to make my work available for the general use of students of astronomy. Ile crazier my doctrine of the earth's motion now appeared to most people, the argument ran, so much the more admiration and thanks would it gain after they saw the publication of my writings dispel the fog of absurdity by most luminous proofs. Influenced therefore by these persuasive men and by this hope, in the end I allowed my friends to bring out an edition of the volume, as they had long besought me to do.

However, Your Holiness will perhaps not be greatly surprised that I have dared to publish my studies after devoting so much effort to working them out that I did not hesitate to put down my thoughts about the earth's motion in written fcrm too. But you are rather waiting to hear from me how it occurred to me to venture to conceive any motion of the earth, against the traditional opinion of astronomers and almost against common sense. I have accordingly no desire to from Your Holiness that I was impelled to consider a different system of deducing the motions of the universe's spheres for no other reason than the realization that astronomers do not agree among themselves in their investigations of this subject. For, in the first place, they are so uncertain about the motion of the sun and moon that they cannot establish and observe a constant length even for the tropical year. Secondly, in determining the motions not only of these bodies but also of the other five planets, they do not use the same principles, assumptions, and explanations of the apparent revolutions and motions. For while some employ only homocentrics, others utilize eccentrics and epicycles, and yet they do not quite reach their goal. For although those who put their faith in homocentrics showed that some nonuniform motions could be compounded in this way, nevertheless by this means they were unable to obtain any incontrovertible result in absolute agreement with the phenomena. On the other hand, those who devised the eccentrics seem thereby in large measure to have solved the problem of the apparent motions with appropriate calculations. But meanwhile they introduced a good many ideas which apparently contradict the first principles of uniform motion. Nor could they elicit or deduce from the eccentrics the principal consideration, that is, the structure of the universe and the true symmetry of its parts. On the contrary, their experience was just like some one taking from various places hands, feet, a head, and other pieces, very well depicted, it may be, but not for the representation of a single person; since these fragments would not belong to one another at all, a monster rather than a man would be put together from them. Hence in the process of demonstration or "method", as it is called, those who employed eccentrics are found either to have omitted something essential or to have admitted something extraneous and wholly irrelevant. This would not have happened to them, had they followed sound principles. For if the hypotheses assumed by them were not false, everything which follows from their hypotheses would be confirmed beyond any doubt. Even though what I am now saying may be obscure, it will nevertheless become clearer in the proper place.

For a long time, then, I reflected on this confusion in the astronomical traditions concerning the derivation of the motions of the universe's spheres. I began to be annoyed that the movements of the world machine, created for our sake by the best and most systematic Artisan of all, were not understood with greater certainty by the philosophers, who otherwise examined so precisely the most insignificant trifles of this world. For this reason I undertook the task of rereading the works of all the philosophers which I could obtain to learn whether anyone had ever proposed other motions of the universe's spheres than those expounded by the teachers of astronomy in the schools. And in fact first I found in Cicero that Hicetas supposed the earth to move. Later I also discovered in Plutarch that certain others were of this opinion. I have decided to set his words down here, so that they may be available to everybody:

Some think that the earth remains at rest. But Philolaus the Pythagorean believes that, like the sun and moon, it revolves around the fire in an oblique circle. Heraclides of Pontus, and Ecphantus the Pythagorean make the earth move, not in a progressive motion, but like a wheel in a rotation from west to east about its own center.

Therefore, having obtained the opportunity from these sources, I too began to consider the mobility of the earth. And even though the idea seemed absurd, nevertheless I knew that others before me had been granted the freedom to imagine any circles whatever for the purpose of explaining the heavenly phenomena. Hence I thought that I too would be readily permitted to ascertain whether explanations sounder than those of my predecessors could be found for the revolution of the celestial spheres on the assumption of some motion of the earth.

Having thus assumed the motions which I ascribe to the earth later on in the volume, by long and intense study I finally found that if the motions of the other planets are correlated with the orbiting of the earth, and are computed for the revolution of each planet, not only do their phenomena follow therefrom but also the order and size of all the planets and spheres, and heaven itself is so linked together that in no portion of it can anything be shifted without disrupting the remaining parts and the universe as a whole. Accordingly in the arrangement of the volume too I have adopted the following order. In the first book I set forth the entire distribution of the spheres together with the motions which I attribute to the earth, so that this book contains, as it were, the general structure of the universe. Then in the remaining books I correlate the motions of the other planets and of all the spheres with the movement of the earth so that I may thereby determine to what extent the motions and appearances of the other planets and spheres can be saved if they are correlated with the earth's motions. I have no doubt that acute and learned astronomers will agree with me if, as this discipline especially requires, they are willing to examine and consider, not superficially but thoroughly, what I adduce in this volume in proof of these matters. However, in order that the educated and uneducated alike may see that I do not run away from the judgement of anybody at all, I have preferred dedicating my studies to Your Holiness rather than to anyone else. For even in this very remote comer of the earth where I live you are considered the highest authority by virtue of the loftiness of your office and your love for all literature and astronomy too. Hence by your prestige and judgement you can easily suppress calumnious attacks although, as the proverb has it, there is no remedy for a backbite.

Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers. To them my work too will seem, unless I am mistaken, to make some contribution also to the Church, at the head of which Your Holiness now stands. For not so long ago under Leo X the Lateran Council considered the problem of reforming the ecclesiastical calendar. The issue remained undecided then only because the lengths of the year and month and the motions of the sun and moon were regarded as not yet adequately measured. From that time on, at the suggestion of that most distinguished man, Paul, bishop of Fossombrone, who was then in charge of this matter, I have directed my attention to a more precise study of these topics. But what I have accomplished in this regard, I leave to the judgement of Your Holiness in particular and of all other learned astronomers. And lest I appear to Your Holiness to promise more about the usefulness of this volume than I can fulfill, I now turn to the work itself.

6) Had he been "silenced," he wouldn't have done his best work AFTER being put under house arrest. You seem to think that I agree with his "persecution"--from our stand point, the Church was totally wrong; but from THEIR standpoint, he was teaching as fact that which he couldn't PROVE was fact. As you and I have already agreed, the Church had its power in Northern Italy--considerably less than you might like to think, but power nonetheless. So sure, he could've run away, and would've likely found some Protestant patron who would protect him (scriptural interpretation aside, it was a great way to get at the Church less than 100 years after the Reformation). But he didn't--he submitted himself to the Church. So cry me a river for his being "silenced"--he submitted HIMSELF to it.

7) The Church (as well as every scientist and philosopher that agreed with it) had to prove nearly 1500 years of accepted astronomical, mathematical, philosophical, and (most importantly) scientific "fact"? Because ONE MAN, with compelling evidence (but not COMPLETE and FINAL) evidence said they were wrong? How does that work?

I am not "defending" their "discarded position;" I, first of all, wanted to point out that the Galileo affair is often mistrepresented, and more often than not misunderstood. Secondly, I was pointing out that in the science of the day (as well as in the science of ours) one must provide EVIDENCE, incontrivertible and final, before one can teach a HYPOTHESIS as FACT. Galileo had evidence, yes--I have never said he didn't. He couldn't PROVE, however, that what he was teaching was, indeed, fact. Newton provided that evidence, and more sophisticated telescopes cemented the FACT. Galileo started the ball rolling with his hypothesis, the Church simply wanted it to remain that until there was enough evidence to solidify it.
Now, why it took them until the 1800s can be debated, but I would wager that we would agree--it is made up of human beings, and We are often loathe to admit our mistakes, particularly after the fuss the Affair caused. Does that make it right? Nope. But I would be curious for you to find me a quote where I said "the Church was right to do it, and never should have said they were wrong." I've been saying all along--He taught as fact that which he couldn't prove was fact, and the Church just wanted more evidence before it completely reconfigured its view of the Universe (it, along with almost every scientist of the day).
Now, if we take what someone else said on this board, that, essentially, it still hasn't been proven, we have another discussion entirely...
589 posted on 01/24/2006 4:36:02 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
It is OK to call it a fact--the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Strictly speaking from my own point of view as an observer the earth does no such thing. That, too, is a fact. The statement applies as a "fact" depending upon one's conception of the relative bodies. Does that mean more than one fact can govern a particular phenomenon? Not necessarily. But the phenomenon may be described factually from more than one point of view with astonishing differences between them.

The leads to the philosophical consideration that the correlation between positive statements and objective reality - the concept of "fact" - is dependent upon both the observer and what resides outside of the observer. At what point does a positive statement merit the status of "fact?"

I can accept both statements as fact: The Sun rises. The Earth revolves. Is one of these statements more factual than the other? From an experiential standpoint the former is by far more obvious. From the standpoint of indirect evidence I am experiencing, and objectively viewing, a result of the Earth's revolution.

590 posted on 01/24/2006 5:10:36 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
"The Inquisition was to root out people within the Church."

I am sure that they took the time to discern the real denomination of whoever came before their courts. lol

"So since there "never will be absolute proof for a scientific theory," then we HAVEN'T proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun?"

We haven't pinpointed the exact orbits, no.

"Galileo had a HYPOTHESIS. His HYPOTHESIS had to be proven, something he couldn't definitively do, which Newton did, and more advanced telescopes proved. So if his "theory" can't be proven...what, we don't revolve around the Sun, or we need more evidence, or it is something that can be DISproven?"

I don't give a rat's ass if Galileo had any evidence or not. It was wrong for the church to silence him, NO MATTER WHAT his argument was. That it was correct is beside the point. That he had positive evidence is beside the point.

"I never said he had no evidence, I said he couldn't PROVE it. He had evidence, and quite compelling evidence at that. Had he stuck with THAT, and laid it out as a HYPOTHESIS, there never would've been any issue. But he taught as FACT that which he could not prove WAS fact."

So what? The Church couldn't prove a damn thing either. Why do they get a pass?

"Again bringing up the intro that someone ELSE wrote? "

Are you deliberately stupid? I have repeatedly said someone else wrote the intro for Copernicus. That's the whole point; if Copernicus' ACTUAL beliefs were known, the book would have been banned.

" Had he been "silenced,"..."

He was forced to recant. That's the state silencing a dissenter.

"You seem to think that I agree with his "persecution"--from our stand point, the Church was totally wrong; but from THEIR standpoint, he was teaching as fact that which he couldn't PROVE was fact."

You DO agree with it. That is why you are defending what the Church today has condemned.

"Because ONE MAN, with compelling evidence (but not COMPLETE and FINAL) evidence said they were wrong? How does that work? "

Reason. That and separation of Church and state.
591 posted on 01/24/2006 5:28:11 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
I never said the Church handled it properly (in my opinion). All I pointed out is that the Church wasn't "anti-science," it was "pro-truth." Galileo couldn't convince his scientific contemporaries, let alone the Church, that what he was teaching as fact WAS fact. He had compelling evidence, yes; Newton is the one that had the PROOF. Galileo had a Hypothesis (a hypothesis which included that the orbits are circular, rather than elliptical-as Kepler proved- and that tides are caused by the movement of the Earth and not the Moon)...

Nonsense.

If "proof" was all the Church was looking for, they would have cleared Galileo once the evidence was presented.

Tell me again how long it took the Church to admit that they were wrong and Galileo was right?

It wasn't about evidence. It was about Church dogma first and foremost.

Fortunately, the Church is no longer being run by anti-Science zealots. That's why the Church accepts evolution.

592 posted on 01/24/2006 5:33:55 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

1) Research the Inquisition. It is far less intrusive than modern history has led you to believe.

2) So since we haven't pinpointed the exact orbits, the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun? In which case Galileo wasn't right after all?

3) He submitted himself to the authority of the Church. The Church was the religious and secular authority in his region; he could have moved out of such influence. He still would have been under pressure from the scientific crowd, but he did not have to submit himself to their power.

4) Copernicus wrote an intro just the same. I included it in the post, you might see. His beliefs WERE well known. It was not until Galileo taught those beliefs as FACT that Copernicus' work came under fire. He wrote the book, as you will see, after prompting by CATHOLIC friends, including a priest and a cardinal. You have some really misguided perceptions about the age of the Scientific Revolution if you think that Copernicus was alone with his thoughts, that no one else knew them.

5) ...a "state" to whose power the "silenced" submitted himself...

6) I agree only with the desire to protect truth; the Church, while wrong (as I have said repeatedly), was, simply, motivated out of a desire to protect truth. It is hardly science if one man can come along claiming proof of something not only fairly revolutionary (an idea 70 years old vs. an accepted "fact" nearly 1500) but counter-intuitive and beyond the grasp of reason and everyone just says "Hooray for you! You did it!" Science is not that--science is observing, testing, analyzing, recording, and holding your work out to be refuted. Galileo taught it as fact before it was established as such.
And again, he submitted himself to the authority of the Church.

7) "Reason" says that the Earth is stationary--it doesn't feel like its moving, it doesn't look like it's moving, and (apparently) hasn't been proven its moving. Galileo said the opposite, albeit with compelling evidence, but not concrete and final evidence (which apparently still hasn't come...)
As for separation of Church and state, I agree with you. I, however, am capable of looking at it from the historic perspective without the taint of our modern sensibilities.


593 posted on 01/25/2006 12:06:18 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: highball
I have already addressed this--in my estimation, they were slow to accept it because A) it was not sufficiently proven for nearly a century, B) the Church is made up of men, and after the stink of the whole thing, they were loathe to admit fault, as any man is.

You say "Church" dogma like it was only the Church in opposition to Galileo--Protestants as well as his fellow scientists, astronomers, and mathematicians were by and large opposed to it. They weren't so much holding to "dogma" as they were holding to "accepted scientific fact."

Read a book--starting with How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, and you will see how WRONG your comment about "anti-science zealots" actually is. Seriously. Read it. Educate yourself.

And the Church hasn't "accepted" evolution. It has just said it is not incompatible with the story of creation or the idea that God implemented it. If evolution is removed from the realm of Divine Inspiration then the Church DOES NOT accept it.
594 posted on 01/25/2006 12:10:47 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Boxes are blue.


595 posted on 01/25/2006 12:18:02 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
" Copernicus wrote an intro just the same."

NO, he didn't. You just said before that it WASN'T Copernicus who wrote the intro. That is correct. Copernicus believed that the Earth REALLY DID move around the Sun. If THIS view was well known, the book would have been banned.


Now, please tell me why Galileo would have to *prove* beyond doubt his theory when the Church NEVER HAD TO PROVE THEIRS? They OBVIOUSLY didn't, as it is WRONG. You have evaded this question now a few times already.

" "Reason" says that the Earth is stationary"

No it doesn't; you're thinking of common sense. Very different thing.

"Galileo said the opposite, albeit with compelling evidence, but not concrete and final evidence (which apparently still hasn't come...)"

And that evidence, which you require from Galileo, you don't require from the Church. Your double standard is obvious.
596 posted on 01/25/2006 12:30:31 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Osiander, Schoenberg, and Copernicus all had an intro to the book. The one that called it "hypothetical" was Osianders. Copernicus wrote his own intro. We have, to this point, been referring to Osiander's.

No, REASON says the Earth is stationery. See, here is where "historical perspective" is nice. Common sense and reason were simpatico 400+ years ago. Common sense said that the Earth didn't move, and reason, as they investigated it, concurred. The Earth doesn't feel like it is moving, all the heavenly bodies seem like the are, so REASON, if you just sit and stare, tends to indicate that you are right. But if you peer through a telescope (something that they didn't have 500+ years ago) REASON shows you are wrong.

Why are you requiring the Church, which relied on biblical interpretation as much as it relied on 1500 years of "proven" and accepted scientific fact to prove its case, while at the same time dismissing Galileo's lack thereof?


597 posted on 01/25/2006 12:49:33 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
they were slow to accept it because A) it was not sufficiently proven for nearly a century, B) the Church is made up of men, and after the stink of the whole thing, they were loathe to admit fault, as any man is.

Exactly. That in no way contradicts what I said.

They were loathe to admit that church dogma was incorrect. Even when it was shown to be incorrect, the men who make up the Church and set its policy took hundreds of years to admit that the Church's position was wrong.

598 posted on 01/25/2006 12:53:51 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
"Why are you requiring the Church, which relied on biblical interpretation as much as it relied on 1500 years of "proven" and accepted scientific fact to prove its case, while at the same time dismissing Galileo's lack thereof?"

I am showing the hypocrisy of your position. You require of Galileo what you NEVER required of the Church: proof.

"No, REASON says the Earth is stationery."

No, you are confusing common sense with reason.

"But if you peer through a telescope (something that they didn't have 500+ years ago) REASON shows you are wrong."

Galileo did though, and reason showed he was right (if you stand by the above statement).

"We have, to this point, been referring to Osiander's."

Which said, contrary to Copernicus' position, that the model presented was not physically real.
599 posted on 01/25/2006 12:55:31 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Why should the Church have to prove that which had been accepted and "proven" for nearly 1500 years? The burden of proof was on Galileo, as he was challenging the scientific standard.

--Reason:
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence
--Common Sense;
Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment

So, 500+ years ago, if I were to logically, rationally, and analytically think about it, it would seem that the Earth didn't move; Common sense would back up that assertion, as I don't feel like I am moving, and the Earth doesn't show it, so it must be that I am still. Again, HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE is useful...

Galileo peered through a telescope, right. Then when he was challenged, he offered no concrete evidence, something which would have been helpful, to say the least, as it flies in the face of REASON and COMMON SENSE that he was right, not to mention it was contrary to 1500 years of accepted and "proven" scientific knowledge. Now, if he had said look, this telescope backs me up, as does this and this, and this law of Gravity that Newton will develop in 100 years, and this idea about orbits Kepler has already developed &c... we'd not be having this discussion.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said it so simply--a telescope alone does not do the trick because you can't see the Earth moving, you can see everything around the Earth moving. Reason would say, OK, this is compelling, I wonder what other evidence I can find.

Again, GALILEO WAS RIGHT--he was not wrong in his Copernican assertion. The ONLY issue I see here, and the only thing with which I have a problem is that you seem to think he should have been showered with accolades for NOT proving his assertion--he made a compelling case, but not until Newton 100 years later and parallaxes &c even later was he DEFINITIVELY vindicated. He submitted himself to the Church's authority, so that is a non-issue. He was criticized by his fellow scientists. He had not presented sufficient evidence to overturn 1500 years of accepted and "proven" scientific "fact". Why do you require the Church prove that which had already been "proven"?


600 posted on 01/25/2006 1:15:03 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-606 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson