Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo

Leela · #1 Sep 20, '10, 7:02 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...?CMP%20=twt_gu

"Consolmagno curates the pope's meteorite collection and is a trained astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican's observatory. He dismissed the ideas of intelligent design – a pseudoscientific version of creationism. "The word has been hijacked by a narrow group of creationist fundamentalists in America to mean something it didn't originally mean at all. It's another form of the God of the gaps. It's bad theology in that it turns God once again into the pagan god of thunder and lightning."

...

The pope's astronomer said the Vatican was keen on science and admitted that the church had got it "spectacularly wrong" over its treatment of the 17th century astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo confirmed that the Earth went around the sun – and not the other way around – and was charged with heresy in 1633. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest in Tuscany. Only in 1992 did Pope John Paul admit that the church's treatment of Galileo had been a mistake."

Gallowglasser · #2 Sep 20, '10, 7:09 am

shame the article doesn't elaborate on the "spectacularly wrong" part,or how these Americans have hijacked the concept of Intellegent Design, but still an interesting enough read.
Thanks for sharing.

JohnDamian · #3 Sep 20, '10, 7:58 am

Galileos arrest was for heresy; not for what he taught. Copernican Heliocentric ideas had been circulating before the Birth of Galileo; and was in fact approved of by Pope Clement VII.

Galileo was nothing more than an arrogant man who taught theory as fact; and an unscientific oaf. It is fortunate the Church exersised charity and forgiveness on this poor man; and only awarded him house arrest.

Rascalking · #4 Sep 20, '10, 8:02 am

What a truly ridiculous statement

Um, if the world was "hijacked" by those nasty creationists, he wouldn't be making the statement. We wouldn't be arguing it. It would be settled. There is debate all over the place about creation.

It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not. To say that discussion is "hijacked" is downright absurd.

Scoobyshme · #5 Sep 20, '10, 8:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leela

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...?CMP%20=twt_gu

"Consolmagno curates the pope's meteorite collection and is a trained astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican's observatory. He dismissed the ideas of intelligent design – a pseudoscientific version of creationism. "The word has been hijacked by a narrow group of creationist fundamentalists in America to mean something it didn't originally mean at all. It's another form of the God of the gaps. It's bad theology in that it turns God once again into the pagan god of thunder and lightning."

...

The pope's astronomer said the Vatican was keen on science and admitted that the church had got it "spectacularly wrong" over its treatment of the 17th century astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo confirmed that the Earth went around the sun – and not the other way around – and was charged with heresy in 1633. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest in Tuscany. Only in 1992 did Pope John Paul admit that the church's treatment of Galileo had been a mistake."

Galileo's problem was that he couldn't prove his theory and published it as fact, even after being warned not to do so. Had he published it as theory, as those before him, he wouldn't have gotten in trouble.

As it was, he was put under house arrest (VERY lenient for the times and culture) in a very posh place!

We have the Catholic Church to thank for the current level of scientific advancement, having provided us with scientific method, as well as many scientific advancements that have helped human society. For example, the scientific field of genetics was introduced by a Catholic monk. So were many other things. But, the Church has standards. You had to prove a theory before you could publish it as fact. Anyone have anything against this approach?!

reggieM · #6 Sep 20, '10, 8:18 am

The hijacked comment is interesting:

"The word has been hijacked by a narrow group of creationist fundamentalists in America to mean something it didn't originally mean at all. It's another form of the God of the gaps. It's bad theology in that it turns God once again into the pagan god of thunder and lightning."

He doesn't explain what it "originally meant" before it was supposedly hijacked.

reggieM · #7 Sep 20, '10, 8:21 am

he said that the traditional definition of a soul was to have intelligence, free will, freedom to love and freedom to make decisions.

Thankfully, he got this part right. I would like to see how he proves it without invoking intelligent design or direct creation by God.

Scoobyshme · #8 Sep 20, '10, 8:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leela

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...?CMP%20=twt_gu

"Consolmagno curates the pope's meteorite collection and is a trained astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican's observatory. He dismissed the ideas of intelligent design – a pseudoscientific version of creationism. "The word has been hijacked by a narrow group of creationist fundamentalists in America to mean something it didn't originally mean at all. It's another form of the God of the gaps. It's bad theology in that it turns God once again into the pagan god of thunder and lightning."

...

The pope's astronomer said the Vatican was keen on science and admitted that the church had got it "spectacularly wrong" over its treatment of the 17th century astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo confirmed that the Earth went around the sun – and not the other way around – and was charged with heresy in 1633. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest in Tuscany. Only in 1992 did Pope John Paul admit that the church's treatment of Galileo had been a mistake."

Here's a very good talk by Dr. Bierle (PhD in Biology, if I recall), who talks about evidence of God from an intelligent design viewpoint. I think he shows how the bombardier beetle proves that God had to design this particular creature vs. it just "evolving" that way. The way the chemicals mix and the timing had to really all happen at once, vs. step by step. Otherwise, it would've blown itself up out of existence.

http://www.alabamacatholicresources....ce_For_God.mp3

Just download it to your PC, MP3 player, iPod/iPad, etc., and enjoy.

Leela · #9 Sep 20, '10, 8:36 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnDamian

Galileos arrest was for heresy; not for what he taught. Copernican Heliocentric ideas had been circulating before the Birth of Galileo; and was in fact approved of by Pope Clement VII.

Galileo was nothing more than an arrogant man who taught theory as fact; and an unscientific oaf. It is fortunate the Church exersised charity and forgiveness on this poor man; and only awarded him house arrest.

Granting that Galileo was put under house arrest for heresy, do you think that people ought to be arrested for heresy???

Leela · #10 Sep 20, '10, 8:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoobyshme

Galileo's problem was that he couldn't prove his theory and published it as fact, even after being warned not to do so. Had he published it as theory, as those before him, he wouldn't have gotten in trouble.

Do you think the Church ought to be telling scientists when it is okay to publish?

traillius · #11 Sep 20, '10, 8:57 am

In regards to the two previous posts, it doesn't matter what we think, since we aren't the ones who were in power back then. And as a point of order, if you think the Church can't do the things you refer to, how can science, which is even less potent as an institution, although far more dangerous, since morality plays no direct role in scientific pursuit of knowledge ( i.e. the atomic bomb ) should be able to make analogous decisions. Both science and religion are based on observation and conclusions regarding the natural world, and explanations thereof. The difference is, religion can look beyond only empirical data. Despite claims, empirical data doesn't usually allow for anomalies, thus it is flawed philosophically, and is often not in keeping with all of reality.

**edwest2** · #12 Sep 20, '10, 9:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leela

Granting that Galileo was put under house arrest for heresy, do you think that people ought to be arrested for heresy???

Yes, in Galileo's case. He was warned: You don't have all the facts. This has not been firmly established. But no, Galileo started running around like a kid with a new toy. I proved it! I proved it!

To Leela - By people, I presume you mean non-Catholics as well. Heresy would only apply to Catholics saying something that was not true and/or contrary to Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

**edwest2** · #13 Sep 20, '10, 9:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leela

Do you think the Church ought to be telling scientists when it is okay to publish?

When a person like Galileo goes to the Pope with his findings and is under his authority, then yes, the Church is interested in the truth, and published or not, has the proper authority to state something will not be taught if it is in error.

To Leela - This, of course, would not apply to scientists who work outside of the Church and are not under her authority.

God bless,
Ed

**edwest2** · #14 Sep 20, '10, 9:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoobyshme

Here's a very good talk by Dr. Bierle (PhD in Biology, if I recall), who talks about evidence of God from an intelligent design viewpoint. I think he shows how the bombardier beetle proves that God had to design this particular creature vs. it just "evolving" that way. The way the chemicals mix and the timing had to really all happen at once, vs. step by step. Otherwise, it would've blown itself up out of existence.

http://www.alabamacatholicresources....ce_For_God.mp3

Just download it to your PC, MP3 player, iPod/iPad, etc., and enjoy.

Intelligent Design has much to commend it and your bombardier beetle is one example.

God bless,
Ed

Leela · #15 Sep 20, '10, 9:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by traillius

In regards to the two previous posts, it doesn't matter what we think, since we aren't the ones who were in power back then. And as a point of order, if you think the Church can't do the things you refer to, how can science, which is even less potent as an institution, although far more dangerous, since morality plays no direct role in scientific pursuit of knowledge ( i.e. the atomic bomb ) should be able to make analogous decisions. Both science and religion are based on observation and conclusions regarding the natural world, and explanations thereof. The difference is, religion can look beyond only empirical data. Despite claims, empirical data doesn't usually allow for anomalies, thus it is flawed philosophically, and is often not in keeping with all of reality.

Most modern people believe in freedom of speech. Do you think we should only be permitted to say or write what certain social institutions deem fit to say or write? I sure hope not. I'm very glad that things have changed since Gallileo's time. It is scary to think that so many here want to turn back the clock on such civil liberties.