|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 15, 2008 17:08:20 GMT -4
ID is not all about evolution, of course. It is about casting doubt and short-circuiting scientific inquiry that conflicts with the Bible. The only ID argument is, "look, this is too complicated and improbable. The only explanation must be that God did it."
That is not science. It is very much in line with Christianity's other attempts to stifle critical thinking and scientific inquiry during the last 2,000 years.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 15, 2008 17:12:41 GMT -4
Wow, all this over a book. Must be an important book with all this fuss. ;D I'm not that familiar with ID here in Canada. It seems to be a non-issue here. I did pick up a book about Creationism once at a garage sale when I went camping. Had something to read when everyone else went swimming. The book was clearly directed at kids, judging by the way it was written and the comic style illustrations. What was worse than the theory itself, was the way it talked about real science and real scientists. It bordered on ridicule. v Needless to say the book ended up in my recycle bin - and I hardly ever get rid of a book. Has anyone here ever had the subject of ID being discussed while in school? I don't think I've ever seen anything about ID that didn't originate in the States.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 15, 2008 17:48:34 GMT -4
It is very much in line with Christianity's other attempts to stifle critical thinking and scientific inquiry during the last 2,000 years. Such as? I tend to think that "Christianity" gets a bad rap about being anti-science when Christianity in fact deserves a lot of the credit for encouraging inquiry into the natural world (viewed as God's handiwork), and thus in developing modern science in the first place. The university system, for example, has its roots in cathedral schools, and their roots go back to monasteries.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 15, 2008 18:01:49 GMT -4
What was the subject of this thread again?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 15, 2008 18:06:09 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 15, 2008 23:25:36 GMT -4
It is very much in line with Christianity's other attempts to stifle critical thinking and scientific inquiry during the last 2,000 years. Such as? Such as denying that the Earth orbits the Sun and isn't the center of the universe. When did the church finally admit they were wrong about that? In the 1990s?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 16, 2008 3:49:44 GMT -4
Such as denying that the Earth orbits the Sun and isn't the center of the universe. When did the church finally admit they were wrong about that? In the 1990s? To be fair, that's when Galileo was pardoned, which is different. Now, it is assuredly true that the Catholic church was not exactly all about the science 500 years ago, though only a tiny bit of research is necessary to show that they've changed that stance. (They even accept evolution, proving that people who do aren't necessarily atheists--unless you have a very different view of the Catholic church than the reality.) However, in my considered opinion, about half of Galileo's crime was being undiplomatic and pretty much calling the Pope at the time an idiot. However, a lot of those promoting Creationism and its bastard child ID don't consider Catholics "true" Christians, proving that their knowledge of their own religion's history is as flawed as their knowledge of science. But since I've read more of the Bible than a lot of them (I personally know some fundamentalists who had to have the Tower of Babel explained to them by a friend of mine who was raised Pagan), this is hardly the only area where their ignorance is apparent.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 16, 2008 11:56:46 GMT -4
Galileo was actually funded by the church. The leading astronomers of the time were Jesuit priests, and they were open to Galileo's theory but argued that the evidence was inconclusive. It was Galileo's attitude that got him in trouble, not his science. He got in trouble because he taught heliocentrism after his own pledge not to do so. He had told Cardinal Bellarmine that given the sensitivity of the issue he would not publicly promote heliocentrism, and then wrote a book that did so. When he appeared in court (being housed in the grand Medici Villa in Rome, not a prison, during his summons) he claimed that Dialogue on the Two World Sysetms did not actually advocate heliocentrism. Anyone who reads the book sees that is untrue. After he was found guilty (not of heresy, but of breaking his pledge) he was under house arrest, and was allowed to visit his daughters and continue publishing scientific papers, not thrown into prison or tortured or burned at the stake.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 16, 2008 16:25:16 GMT -4
This isn't quite true, there was no prohibition on teaching heliocentrism, just that he was to give geocentrism the same airtime so to speak. The issue was that he was a little too arrogant and the book he wrote essentially had a character who was obviously suppossed to be the Pope and made him look like an idiot, not the sort of thing to do after having been chastised and given instructions on what to do. In today's terms it'd be like publishing charactertures of the Judge at your trail for speeding tickets and then wondering why he threw you in the clink for 20 years on contempt of court charges.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 16, 2008 19:00:16 GMT -4
Perhaps you shouldn't put the words of your friend the Pope into the mouth of a character you name "Simplicius" and put on the obvious wrong side of an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 16, 2008 23:00:01 GMT -4
Being that the Pope is infallible, it's just science that has changed throughout the centuries...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 16, 2008 23:42:12 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 17, 2008 2:49:28 GMT -4
Being that the Pope is infallible, it's just science that has changed throughout the centuries... The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is modern. 1870, in point of fact. Further, even under that doctrine, not everything the Pope says is considered infallible; there have to be certain circumstances. I don't think anything any Pope since 1870 has said about science (except birth control, which is a whole different issue) has been under Papal Infallibility.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 17, 2008 11:40:41 GMT -4
Cardinal Bellarmine, after meeting with Galileo: “While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.”
So his position was "if it's proven correct then we must have misunderstood scripture, just show me the evidence first."
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 17, 2008 15:09:48 GMT -4
Being that the Pope is infallible, it's just science that has changed throughout the centuries... The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is modern. 1870, in point of fact. Further, even under that doctrine, not everything the Pope says is considered infallible; there have to be certain circumstances. I don't think anything any Pope since 1870 has said about science (except birth control, which is a whole different issue) has been under Papal Infallibility. I used the wrong smiley face. Sure, they can be wrong, but it takes centuries to admit it.
|
|