PDA

View Full Version : An interesting view of creation/evolution



Banquo's Ghost
09-05-2006, 11:30
As most of you know, I am quite an advocate of evolution against creationist ideas. It is always wise, however, to listen to the arguments of one's opponents and try to understand them.

I found this article written in preparation for the recent meeting of the Pope and some of his scientific advisors to discuss 'intelligent design'. The minutes of that meeting are due to be published in November.

The article is quite long, but bears reading. It is well argued, and is a position I can accept as being internally consistent for those of faith (whom I respect) but perhaps challenging to those who are literalist (whom I deride).

A taster:


Creationism seems to be gaining strength because people are failing to see or to convey the deep truth and distinctive nature of religious language, and failing to see the truly exciting cosmic vision that Christianity has to proclaim. These are the things a properly Christian education should seek to convey; if they are seen, then the debate about creationism might simply fade away.

Beyond boundaries: the infinite creator (http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/8531/)

Pope Benedict and his former doctoral students meet this weekend to discuss creation and evolution. Despite their apparent differences, the idea of the evolution of human life and its intelligent design by God are not in conflict, says one leading philosopher of religion.

I was surprised to discover a survey of over 1,000 students last month by Opinion Panel Research, an independent research group for recording student opinions on a wide range of topics, which purported to show that over 30 per cent of UK students believed in "creationism or intelligent design, rather than evolution".

I was not quite so surprised when I found that "creationism" was defined as the view that God created us within the last 10,000 years, and "intelligent design" as the view that some features of living things are due to a supernatural being such as God. The trouble with this is the vagueness of the definition of "intelligent design". For every orthodox Christian, it is necessarily true that some features of living things are due to God. In fact all features of living things are due to God, and the cosmos is indeed designed with supreme wisdom and intelligence. So any student might say that they believe in intelligent design, but that would not compete with belief in the evolution of life.

God creates adult human beings as organisms that have developed from a single cell over a period of time. It is not in principle different to say that God created human beings on earth as a species that developed from single cell organisms by a process of development over four thousand million years. The evolution of human life, and its intelligent design by God, are not in conflict.

I guess that some students were rightly puzzled by the question. This is not surprising, because there is a school of thought in America that propagates what it calls "intelligent design". These theorists, like William Dembski and Michael Behe, do not deny evolution. They propose that some specific and identifiable phenomena, like the bacterial flagellum or the blood-clotting cascade, are "irreducibly complex", and cannot be accounted for by the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection alone. They require specific intelligent planning, presumably by something very like God.

The vast majority of biologists regard this as an extremely weak hypothesis. Most informed Catholic theologians agree with the American Catholic philosopher, John Haught, that it is also a very questionable view of how God interacts with the world. It suggests that God has to interfere with physical processes every now and then in identifiable ways. This theory was christened the "God of the gaps" hypothesis by the British mathematician Charles Coulson. It seems at odds with the Christian view that God is constantly sustaining and directing all creatures.

So it is important to distinguish the American "intelligent design" school from the general Christian belief that the universe, and the evolutionary process as a whole, are indeed designed by a supreme intelligence. If the students surveyed were indeed confused by the question, then only about 12 per cent of students questioned in the survey were "young Earth" believers - that is, they thought the universe to be less than 10,000 years old. This is still very sad, since it is the virtually unanimous testimony of astronomers and cosmologists that the cosmos is 14 billion years old. It demonstrates a huge conflict between the best modern science and the Christian (or Muslim) beliefs of some students. It means that such students will regard modern science as the enemy of faith.

Modern science originated in a context of Christian belief that God had created the cosmos through reason, through the Logos, and that the human mind could discern the glory of God in the works of creation. It is regrettable in the extreme that some Christians have now abandoned this belief.

Neither the Pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the overwhelming majority of Christian theologians are creationists, so what accounts for this strange state of affairs? I think two main factors are at work. First there is a loss of a sense of the importance of metaphor and poetic language in religion. Nobody believes that the Earth is a flat disc floating on a great sea of chaos, or that the stars are lamps hung on the dome of the sky, above which is another great sea. Yet that is what the Book of Genesis literally says. So all agree that we cannot read the Genesis creation account (or two accounts) literally.

Once you have made that step, the obvious thing to say is that here is a piece of inspired poetry, depicting the dependence of all things on the creative wisdom of God. There is a literal truth expressed in the text - the dependence of all things on God - but the text expresses it in a poetic way that is both more emotionally affective and more evocative of associated ideas. The problem is that some people think poetry is not important, or cannot express things which go beyond what can be literally described. This is the death of religious imagination, and it is sad to see the profound symbols and metaphors of religion reduced to literal descriptions of purely physical facts.

Second, there is a failure to see the amazing cosmic vision that modern cosmology provides for Christian faith. That God should, over thousands of millions of years, by laws of incredible beauty and simplicity, bring out of the basic matter of the early universe all the complexity of galaxies, planets, living beings and intelligent moral awareness, is truly wonderful. As the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians depict it, Christ is the eternal wisdom of God through whom this unimaginably vast emergent cosmos was formed and in whom it develops, working towards what the writer calls the "final mystery" of the divine will set forth in Christ, the unity of everything in the cosmos (the writer says, "everything in heaven and earth", and we might say all the stars and galaxies), in Christ (Ephesians 1, 9).

This is a religious vision of the utmost grandeur. Christ is Lord of the galaxies, and foreshadows on this planet the final goal of all creation, to be united in God. The cosmos is moving towards a great goal, it groans as in childbirth waiting for the revealing of the children of God (Romans 8:19). For a Christian, evolution is not just intelligently designed; it manifests a divinely intended purpose, that the material universe itself should become a sharer in the life of God, as it grows towards its fullness in Christ.

What a grandeur of vision those who cannot accept evolution are bound to miss. How much smaller and more restricted is a God who has only one little planet to worry about, and that not for very long. How much greater it is to worship the creator of innumerable worlds of beauty and wisdom, and to be grateful that this infinite creator has been pleased to be known in human form on this planet, at this point in cosmic history.

The argument about creationism in our schools is not really about science, because the creationist theory is based not on scientific study, but on a particular literalistic interpretation of Scripture. There are important questions at issue about the proper understanding of science. Some scientists say science gives an adequate explanation of everything, that evolutionary science shows human life to be a random accident in a purposeless universe, and that science excludes the possibility of divine action in the world or of miracles. It is important to see that these are not scientific statements. They are philosophical remarks about what science is. No believer in God could accept them. So Christians would wish to say that God, who is most truly real, is beyond the range of scientific explanation. Evolutionary science does not rule out a belief that the evolution of human beings is purposive and eternally planned by God. God can act in the world, but God's actions cannot in principle be explained by any scientific laws.

There are arguments here, but they are about philosophy, and classes in philosophy are the right place to discuss them. Yet as part of that discussion it is important to see that Christianity is not a sort of physical science, which rejects what the best physical scientists say. It is about the existence of God as the supreme spiritual reality, and about how God relates to the human world through the person of Jesus and the Church.

Creationism seems to be gaining strength because people are failing to see or to convey the deep truth and distinctive nature of religious language, and failing to see the truly exciting cosmic vision that Christianity has to proclaim. These are the things a properly Christian education should seek to convey; if they are seen, then the debate about creationism might simply fade away.

Keith Ward is Gresham Professor of Divinity, a fellow of the British Academy and author of Pascal's Fire: Scientific Faith and Religious Understanding (Oneworld Publications, Oxford, £9.99).

InsaneApache
09-05-2006, 11:33
Another interesting article.


HUMANS have evolved over tens of thousands of years to be susceptible to supernatural beliefs, a psychologist has claimed.

Religion and other forms of magical thinking continue to thrive — despite the lack of evidence and advance of science — because people are naturally biased to accept a role for the irrational, said Bruce Hood, Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2342599,00.html

Banquo's Ghost
09-05-2006, 11:57
Another interesting article.

Yes, it is interesting, though like most pyschologists, he seems to be arguing intuitively rather than scientifically. I'd like to see his evidence for the evolutionary advantage conferred by 'irrational' belief. Successful evolutionary strategies are often duplicated, so we should see similar use of intuitive leaps from other species.

Moving over to the realm of philosophy, I would argue that intuition and the beleif in the 'irrational' is a necessary element of the advance of science. there have often been points at which 'rational' orthodoxy as brought enquiry to a halt (because for example, the means to make or analyse observations were not available) and only imaginative leaps of intuition have opened up a new path of thought.

Not to mention that if we were purely rational beings, there would be some questions to the utility of art and culture. Spirituality and religion has brought us both to question the mind of God and to attempt to re-create it.

I think that's a fair deal for having to deal with some nut-cases. :wink:

Navaros
09-05-2006, 12:39
Nothing is more irrational then believing that apes turned into men.

The message of the article in the original post is completely wrong.

The Bible is explicitly clear that God created man instantly in his own image from the Earth and the first man was a specific individual named Adam.

In addition trying to "believe both" brings about all other sorts of problems such as neglecting the Fall of man and the corruption of the world once sin entered into it due to Adam and Eve's actions. Man started out perfect, and has been devolving and getting worse over time due to sin, not improving. This is a fundamental core principle of the Bible which is completely unreconcilable with "evolution." In addition to neglecting the Flood and other fundamental core things in the Bible.

Those who claim to believe in both evolution and Christianity are putting the false doctrine of man ahead of the true Word of God. That is apostasy, a very grievous sin. One can't "have your cake and eat it too", as modern day apostates try to do by claiming that evolution and Christianity can go together and that they believe in both. Bottom line is that one will be choosing his priority even if he tries to put on a masquerade of believing both. Either believing what God has said and putting that at the forefront of his life; or one will put apostate nonsense that man had made up in his own mind at the forefront of his life.


This is still very sad, since it is the virtually unanimous testimony of astronomers and cosmologists that the cosmos is 14 billion years old.

Such reliable testimony surely, since all of those giving that testimony were around to witness the cosmos 14 billion years ago. :idea2:

What is really sad are people like the article writer having the arrogance and gall to think that the infantile minds of man are wiser than God and that anyone who does not conform to that untrue, secular humanist way of thinking has the problem.

Ice
09-05-2006, 12:43
Nothing \
What is really sad are people like the article writer having the arrogance and gall to think that the infantile minds of man are wiser than God and that anyone who does not conform to that untrue, secular humanist way of thinking has the problem.

The irony there amazes me.

The_Mark
09-05-2006, 13:50
The irony there amazes me.
... what if Navaros has been playing with us all this time, laughing into his beard?


Christ is the eternal wisdom of God through whom this unimaginably vast emergent cosmos was formed and in whom it develops, working towards what the writer calls the "final mystery" of the divine will set forth in Christ, the unity of everything in the cosmos (the writer says, "everything in heaven and earth", and we might say all the stars and galaxies), in Christ (Ephesians 1, 9).
If God equals, or rather, creates laws of physics and the four interactions on which awful lot of things work, and which are theorized to become one in place of extremely high energy density, such as singularities, we have a pattern here. The Big Bang, the first singularity with near enough infinite energy density, happens due to God. Universe expands according to the law of God = laws of physics, some 10^n years later the expansion is reversed and the Big Crunch happens, everything becoming one with everything in one singularity of love. ~:grouphug:

And if the universe indeed is deterministic, everything is happening according to God's plans and the all-knowing wise beard calculated the course of every particle and vibration through the span of existence beforehand to set things afoot as he wished.

rotorgun
09-05-2006, 15:20
As always, it is a matter of interpretation when it comes to one's personal belief in the Creation. I have always tended to think of the 7 days of creation as 7 indeterminate time periods that the original author calls "days". If one looks at the breakdown of events in the scriptures dispassionately, then a pattern of an evolving creation emerges. That God has the power to speak it all into existence in 7 literal days is beyond my understanding, but then, who can know the mind of God.

That he played a role in the process is undoubted by me, for therein lies faith, the evidence of things not seen. I think that for we humans, so limited in our understanding, to try to discern how long it actually took for the world and the universe to be created or evolved is almost ludicrous. It's like an ant trying to describe the planet earth through looking out from atop his anthole. Until we are able to get a larger view we will never really truly understand it. That we shouldn't try would be wrong. It is one of the reasons God gave us such driving curiosity. Then again, my cat has driving curiosity too. ~:)

Regards,

Redleg
09-05-2006, 15:22
Then again, my cat has driving curiosity too. ~:)



Your cat is also one of God's creatures. :idea2:

But I do agree with the idea behind your thought.

rotorgun
09-05-2006, 15:49
Your cat is also one of God's creatures. :idea2:

But I do agree with the idea behind your thought.

I sometimes think that my cat is smarter than I am too. :laugh4: :laugh4:

I do believe that this is the first time we have agreed publicly on anything. Should we have a toast or something? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Regards,

yesdachi
09-05-2006, 16:19
NothingSuch reliable testimony surely, since all of those giving that testimony were around to witness the cosmos 14 billion years ago. :idea2:
Just like the reliable accounts form the people that were there to watch god create man instantly. :inquisitive:

Tribesman
09-05-2006, 20:23
Banquo are you trying to get me banned ?
Another cretinist topic :furious3:

Nothing is more irrational then believing that apes turned into men.

Yet another example of a religeous nut argueing against a theory that he doesn't even have the slightest knowledge of :no:
Or is that just a great big typo Navaros , a bit like those that occured in the translation and translation and translation followed by editing and editing and editing again with a bit more translation with editing thrown in for good measure in the collection of copies of dubious non contemporary accounts of non witnessed events that have been open to heavy alteration yet that you think are accurate .:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:
I would put in the normal "why is your faith so weak" comment here , but in this case "why is your faith so warped" is more appropriate .

rory_20_uk
09-05-2006, 21:25
What I find amazing is the way that the canonical works are followed so blindly, whereas the much greater mass of non-canonical writings are largely ignored.

Both are written by people. One lot just happen to have been thought good by a Roman Emperor who is thought to have converted to Christianity due to guilt he felt over killing his wife and son.

I'm trying to find the other 17 gospels that didn't make the final cut. Whether I get time to read them is another thing...

~:smoking:

Seamus Fermanagh
09-05-2006, 21:33
Nothing is more irrational then believing that apes turned into men.

Yet another example of a religeous nut argueing against a theory that he doesn't even have the slightest knowledge of :no:

Tribes':

Tsk...tsk...tsk. Do you have a raw nerve protruding or some such?

Nothing in Nav's post leads me to suspect that he is unaware of the basic parameters of the Theories of Evolution or of Intelligent Design. In fact, he appears to have a good gloss of both -- however much he views them to be wrong. I am, according to his definition, something of an apostate (He and I might go at that one a bit, but I believe in a forgiving God, so I pray I'll do well either way), but thought he was summarizing the classic Creationist perspective rather well and doing so as a counterpoint to those theories he views as incorrect (general points, not details of course).

In addition, your attack on the divine authorship of the Bible is pointless as a means to win any argument. Those who believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God have faith that God's inspiration surpasses any human frailty and therefore has not suffered from translation errors etc. Those who view it as a work of, by, and for humans assume it to be no more accurate or "original" than Homer's Illiad or the tall tales of Paul Bunyan. The former think your argument irrelevant, and the latter already believe as you do, hence the persuasive value of this line of argument is nil.

Finally...why does there seem to be no parallel group of "science nuts" who catch your usual derision for extremists? Is religiosity some kind of a "tragic flaw" in your evaluation of others?

Samurai Waki
09-05-2006, 21:36
Well it's obvious that the flying spaghetti monster *cough*god*cough* didn't create man in his own image...except perhaps his noodly appendage.

yesdachi
09-05-2006, 21:39
What I find amazing is the way that the canonical works are followed so blindly, whereas the much greater mass of non-canonical writings are largely ignored.
Not blindly, because they are told to by Pastor Neverwrong.

I remember going to a bible study a while ago and after arguing for the first half decided to sit and be quiet thru the second half and just never go back. What a bunch of sheep they were.

Not all churches are that militant in their beliefs, thank goodness, but the ones that are, are very frustrating to be in or deal with.

I believe in god and in evolution but I take the bible as more of a source to learn lessons from rather than a factual history of the world.

Crazed Rabbit
09-05-2006, 21:47
Ah, the joy of being Catholic. Being able to be devout and enjoy astronomy.

"See that faint, fuzzy blob of light? It's hundreds of thousands of light years away." Be kind of hard for all the light to have reached us from the stars if the universe was but 10,000 years old.

Crazed Rabbit

InsaneApache
09-05-2006, 22:14
Another cretinist topic

Now that I like. :2thumbsup:

Tribesman
09-05-2006, 22:43
Is religiosity some kind of a "tragic flaw" in your evaluation of others?

Nope , the flaw is in what he wrote ........Nothing is more irrational then believing that apes turned into men.

Can you spot it ? it has been dealt with umpteen times already .

Further to answer you question about "religiosity"(is that a word~;) ) try the quote From St Augustine I posted in the last cretinist topic , it is as true now as it was when he (allegedly , as its down to believing what someone said he said) said it . It sums up this whole topic .

Ah, the joy of being Catholic. Being able to be devout and enjoy astronomy.

Rabbit brings up a very valid point , a scientific veiw of astronomy theories rather than a biblical one would have got him tortured by the Catholic church a while back , but then again the Catholic church is an apostate church according to Nav so perhaps that is why they don't condemn scientists so often nowadays .

Now fair play to Nav , he does know his scripture , and his posting has prompted me to read several of the books that are no longer in the bible , or are still in the bible in very heavily edited form (though of course the accuracy of those other books is also a matter of dispute). But there is a serious problem with his reasoning , you could call it a fundamental flaw based on his adherence to the absolute truth of the Old Testament , yet he rejects parts of the Old Testament .
If it is truth and absolute truth in its entirety then it must be absolute truth in its entirety , you cannot pick out bits and say "oh well that isn't true anymore because well , you can see that isn't true anymore , but the rest of it is because it is true and its all true , well apart from that and that as things change you know " yet he does .

AntiochusIII
09-06-2006, 00:20
Well, here is my opinion, in short version:

The matter of reconciling faith with science belongs to those with the faith.

The rest of us, well, we don't even have the problem in the first place.

Though these two articles are well-written and intelligent, and present reasonable viewpoints, I would say that they are neither particularly groundbreaking nor are they particularly original. Then again, a repetition of sensibility in this world of superstitions might not be so undesirable...

Of note in the first article, apart from the matter of faith and science, is the statement about the views of some scientists that science adequately provide the explanations of our existence, without the need for religion. It intelligently states the point which many miss: scientists have opinions, too, and these are statements of philosophical nature as opposed to being scientific. Even some of the more intelligent "people of the faith" make the mistake of associating this particular philosophical viewpoint with science, and then attack it. A sad mistake, I'd say.

In the second, the general theme is recognition that superstition and irrationality as something human: dynamic, adaptable, inherent, useful.

rotorgun
09-06-2006, 01:32
Now that was well said AntiochusIII, and very apt to our discusion. I especially like the following from your arguement:


Of note in the first article, apart from the matter of faith and science, is the statement about the views of some scientists that science adequately provide the explanations of our existence, without the need for religion. It intelligently states the point which many miss: scientists have opinions, too, and these are statements of philosophical nature as opposed to being scientific. Even some of the more intelligent "people of the faith" make the mistake of associating this particular philosophical viewpoint with science, and then attack it. A sad mistake, I'd say.

I tend to agree with you that "people of faith" do have a tendency to attack the opinions of others. In that regard, some "scientific minded folks" have the same tendency to dismiss (I hate to asy it) "faith based" philosophies.

I offer the following short quote from Paul's epistle (if it is even certain that he is the human author) to the Romans for our consideration:

....since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For scince the creation (I'll agree that the world may be older than 10,000 years) of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom 1:19-20, NIV, Broadman & Holman)

I think this chimes in with what you are saying. The next part in verses 21-23 are a warning against unbelief and worship of false gods:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave him thanks, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claim to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birsds and animals and reptiles.

While clearly Pual was writing to a first century audience in Rome, it still speaks to us today in amany ways. Certainly most modern people are no longer idol worshippers in the strict sense, but many still worship at the high alter of materializm and put their faith in modern philosophies that are not always good moral guides. I like the begining of Chapter two:

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for
at whatever you point you judge the other, you are condemming yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (Rom 2:1, NIV)

It is sage advice to all of us, believer and non believer to give one another respect in our views. As I have alluded to previously, I do not ascribe to the literal interpretation of Genesis' account of creation, but certainly feel that God's divine hand was, and is still, a part of it.

Regards,

PS edit: Does anyone know if the Koran speaks about the creation in the same way as the Christian Bible? Here is your chance my Muslim brothers to kick the Christians around a bit. :laugh4:

Seamus Fermanagh
09-06-2006, 02:49
Nope , the flaw is in what he wrote ........Nothing is more irrational then believing that apes turned into men.

Can you spot it ? it has been dealt with umpteen times already.

Well, I gave him credit here for a little bit of literary flair. The current version of the Theory of Evolution asserts commonalities in development and not some form of metamorphosis, of course. Both forms of life are advancing in parallel. My estimate is that Nav was aware of this and simply using a little "Tennessee v. John Scopes" license.


Now fair play to Nav , he does know his scripture , and his posting has prompted me to read several of the books that are no longer in the bible , or are still in the bible in very heavily edited form (though of course the accuracy of those other books is also a matter of dispute). But there is a serious problem with his reasoning , you could call it a fundamental flaw based on his adherence to the absolute truth of the Old Testament , yet he rejects parts of the Old Testament .
If it is truth and absolute truth in its entirety then it must be absolute truth in its entirety, you cannot pick out bits and say "oh well that isn't true anymore because well, you can see that isn't true anymore , but the rest of it is because it is true and its all true , well apart from that and that as things change you know" yet he does.

Much better argument here Tribes'. I hope Nav' replies, as this is one he should be able to counter in support of his own argument. You are attempting to counter his argument within its own context -- good show -- and not attacking the "givens" upon which it is based. The latter approach is not exactly "unfair," but comes off a bit dismissive.

ajaxfetish
09-06-2006, 05:05
Based on this article I must say that Keith Ward and I are in very close agreement on the nature of God's creation and the relationship of faith and science. I've come to think that at least in modern times the Catholic Church has a much more mature attitude when it comes to this relationship than most Protestant denominations, or even my own church.

And as usual, Navaros makes arguments I can't possibly reconcile with any consistent or acceptable notion of God.

Ajax

Mooks
09-06-2006, 05:20
Gah!! Another forum is having this exact same topic over and over again. Iv almost resolved to saying "WE WILL FIND OUT WHEN WE DIE"

Papewaio
09-06-2006, 23:44
Yes, it is interesting, though like most pyschologists, he seems to be arguing intuitively rather than scientifically. I'd like to see his evidence for the evolutionary advantage conferred by 'irrational' belief. Successful evolutionary strategies are often duplicated, so we should see similar use of intuitive leaps from other species.


We are never as alone as when we are self-aware.

I think we created religion for comfort. We have a need to know and a need to feel part of something.

Being self-aware leads us to understand being alone. Our rational mind can see that we are tiny motes on a tiny planet in a tiny part of a galaxy which itself is just a tiny fraction of the known universe. It scares us and like children we look to a parent figure, like a baby chimp we end up choosing comfort over rational sustenance.

Crazed Rabbit
09-07-2006, 00:30
Rabbit brings up a very valid point , a scientific veiw of astronomy theories rather than a biblical one would have got him tortured by the Catholic church a while back

Really? Galileo was put under house arrest, but certainly not tortured. Copernicus was encouraged to publish his theory that the earth was not the center of the universe by members of the clergy.

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman
09-07-2006, 01:08
Really? Galileo was put under house arrest, but certainly not tortured. Copernicus was encouraged to publish his theory that the earth was not the center of the universe by members of the clergy.


Really ? Thats funny as Galileo was encouraged by members of the clergy too , then shipped of to be threatened with the inquisition by the very same clergymen . wierd isn't it .
Still he was lucky though , all he had to do was swear that he was wrong , embace the bible as the truth and apologise for his heresey to avoid the fates of Bruno or De Domini of Spalatro who were not so lucky when it came to avoiding torture for studying "incorrect" science .
A:book: or two might help you ~;)

Crazed Rabbit
09-07-2006, 01:27
You've got to come up with more information than just one obscure example without any proof to back up your flat out claim that having a heliocentric view would have gotten me tortured.

Crazed Rabbit

ajaxfetish
09-07-2006, 01:28
If Galileo would have limited himself to making assertions he could support, refrained from viciously deriding his colleagues, and generally not been such an arrogant jackass he probably wouldn't have had to put up with what little he did face. During his time the Catholic Church was the biggest supporter of science, philosophy, and new ideas in the western world.

Ajax

Papewaio
09-07-2006, 01:35
If Galileo would have limited himself to making assertions he could support, refrained from viciously deriding his colleagues, and generally not been such an arrogant jackass he probably wouldn't have had to put up with what little he did face.

Sounds a bit like Newton or any Physics conference to me... something about scientists and sarcasm methinks.

ajaxfetish
09-07-2006, 01:50
There may be an element of arrogance common among scientists, or even intellectuals in general, but Galileo had plenty of contemporary colleagues, some of whom were also heliocentrists, who managed to stay well within the church's good graces.

Ajax

BDC
09-07-2006, 10:31
There may be an element of arrogance common among scientists, or even intellectuals in general, but Galileo had plenty of contemporary colleagues, some of whom were also heliocentrists, who managed to stay well within the church's good graces.

Ajax
Most of them were members of the church themselves. No one argued Galileo was wrong (everyone important was basically unofficially convinced then anyway), just he broke some church rules and some older papal orders.

As soon as you have a telescope it's painfully obvious to even the most fanatical observer that everything orbits the sun. Just when god's representative on Earth said that was wrong a few years earlier it's issuesome.

Tribesman
09-07-2006, 20:59
You've got to come up with more information than just one obscure example without any proof to back up your flat out claim that having a heliocentric view would have gotten me tortured.

Errrrrrrr...Rabbit that's TWOexamples and they are not obscure at all , unless of course you are holding forth on a subject where your knowledge is lacking . And you wouldn't do that would you ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
The first is from 7-8 years before Gallilee got the summons (I wonder if you will get that ? probably not as it is a bit 17th century:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: reading a:book: or two might help you ) , the second is from the same time as himself getting hauled up , unfortunately those two were too silly to avoid the dungeons of the inquisition like Galileo did , they kept insisting they were right , he on the other hand played it clever and said he was wrong about the Sun and agreed that the prosecutions case based on Joshua was right , and he said he was wrong about the Moon and the prosecution was right 'cos thats what it says in Genesis .:2thumbsup:

No one argued Galileo was wrong (everyone important was basically unofficially convinced then anyway), just he broke some church rules and some older papal orders.

As soon as you have a telescope it's painfully obvious to even the most fanatical observer that everything orbits the sun. Just when god's representative on Earth said that was wrong a few years earlier it's issuesome.
Wrong BDC , he was made to admit he was wrong very publicly , Universities were banned from spreading his or other "wrong" sciences (which even included some mathematics) . The official line was the telescope was an instrument of impish devillry and observations made with it were illusions sent by the devil .

Claudius the God
09-11-2006, 07:29
Nothing is more irrational then believing that apes turned into men.
...
What is really sad are people like the article writer having the arrogance and gall to think that the infantile minds of man are wiser than God and that anyone who does not conform to that untrue, secular humanist way of thinking has the problem.

Apes didn't just turn into men, it took thousands of generations with slight adaptations in each generation for human ancestors evolve into humans. it took a very long time, but it did happen. we have ancient human and pre-human remains which have been studied in extensive detail. the Hominid family tree is quite detailed, I suggest you look at the bones and listening to what experts have gained from them before dimissing anything off as irrational... otherwise, why should any sensible person take what you say seriously?

Personally, the idea that mankind was created out of dirt is complete nonsense to me and to many millions of others on this planet. if your'e going to make an even remotely intelligent argument then you better use something based on fact, not fiction.

Humanity is not as stupid as you clearly want us to be.

And what is wrong with Secular Humanism? - as a proud Secular Humanist myself, you better explain to me what exactly is wrong about the Humanist view of the world or about Humanists (both secular and non-secular) themselves.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration

Tell me what is wrong with the following values:
Free Inquiry
Separation of Church and State
The Ideal of Freedom
Ethics Based on Critical Intelligence
Moral Education
Religious Skepticism
Reason
Science and Technology
Evolution
Education

if you have the guts to criticize these values, you better follow up with a convincing argument as to why these values are bad.
Humanists don't want others to 'convert' as many religious groups and individuals want others to convert. Humanists want people to make an informed and intelligent decision for themselves, even if they decide on something else besides Humanism/Secular Humanism.

You are clearly not very well informed about anything besides scripture...

Samurai Waki
09-11-2006, 07:33
Yeah but Navaros should know that anything inanimate is far superior to anything living. It makes far more sense that god took a piss four thousand years ago and was surprised to find humans in the puddle he made.