Posted on 02/04/2006 1:27:38 PM PST by Lorianne
In a column late last month in the Catholic Church's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, Italian biologist Fiorenzo Facchini scolded intelligent design advocates for "pretending to do science." It was the Vatican's signal that the church had jumped ship on ID. That will no doubt rankle creationists who hoped for a potential ally in Rome. But there's a bright side for them: The church's rejection could help the ID-ers identify with their favorite scientist, Galileo Galilei.
In opinion pieces, speeches, and interviews, ID advocates commonly cite the 17th-century Italian astronomer and physicist as a forebear. It's not his views on biology they want a piece of, but rather his plight as a man before his time. "In my opinion, we must train students in the 21st century to do exactly as Galileo did … think outside the box," says William Harris, one of the key players in Kansas' rebellion against evolution last year. In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, leading ID-er Michael Behe calls the idea of a heliocentric universe, proposed by Copernicus and backed by Galileo, a prescient "assault on the senses."
Last fall, an interviewer for the British newspaper the Guardian asked Behe if the criticism of ID he faces brings Galileo to mind. The self-appointed science rebel had a simple answer: "Yeah. In a way it's flattery."
Welcome to creationism's absurdist history of science. During the inquisition, the Catholic Church put Galileo on trial in 1633 and forced him under threat of torture to recant his belief, presented unapologetically in the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, that the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo's story has nuances—Pope Urban VIII tolerated his ideas more than hard-line cardinals—but it is unquestionably a tale of science squelched by organized religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
>> the Catholic Church put Galileo on trial in 1633 and forced him under threat of torture to recant his belief, presented unapologetically in the Dialogue Concerning the ..a tale of science squelched by organized religion.
Bunch of Rubbish. Galileo was in trouble because he taught his THEORY as if it were established fact. He had many supporting Bishops and Cardinals, but he ran into trouble because he refused to stop teaching it as if were indisputable fact.
This is why he got into trouble, not because Rome felt it his theory has heretical.
Remember, Rome was BIG in science during that time, and many came to Rome to present their theories, as did Galileo. The Church was never opposed, it just wanted people to stop running around like the evolutionists do today proclaiming evolution as absolute fact.
Had Galileo simply treated his theory as that, there would have been no problem and he would have eventually been proven right.
From what I've read it was mostly the "scientists" of the day - who had been brought up on the Aristotle/Ptolemy model of the solar system - that were yelling for Galileo's scalp. Pope Urban was inclined to give Galileo a pass, but due to the pressure he gave him a wrist slap (house arrest where Galileo could work on his experiments ... which he enjoyed doing anyways). This article makes it sound like it was the Roman Catholic church that initiated this lynch mob -- albeit it cryptically acknowledges some 'nuances'. Rather than describing Galileo's work as "science squelched by organized religion" I believe it more accurate to describe it as an attempt to squelch a new idea, or way of thinking, by entrenched academia.
By Wil Milan
If you ask people what Galileo Galilei is famous for, most will say that he invented the telescope, used it to prove the earth goes around the sun, and that the Catholic Church condemned him for his discoveries. That much is common knowledge, no?
In fact, none of those things is true.
Galileo did not invent the telescope. When and where the telescope was invented is not certain, but what is certain is that in 1609 Galileo heard about the new invention and made one for himself. Soon he turned it on the heavens, and it was at that moment that his destiny turned to fame.
Every night brought new discoveries. He discovered that the Milky Way is not a soft band of light but a cloud of millions and millions of stars, that the moon is covered with craters, that Venus has phases like the moon, even that the sun has spots on its face. (Looking at the sun through a telescope is probably what doomed Galileo to blindness later in his life.) Excited beyond measure by his discoveries, Galileo in 1610 published a little book, Siderius Nuncius (The Starry Messenger), detailing his discoveries.
The Starry Messenger made Galileo an overnight celebrity, and his discoveries did not go unnoticed by officials of the Catholic Church, many of whom were scholarly individuals with an interest in the sciences. Some of the leading cardinals of the Church were fellow members of the scientific society to which Galileo belonged and took great interest and pride in the discoveries of their most famous member.
The Church also lauded Galileo publicly. He had a friendly audience with Pope Paul V, and in 1611 the Jesuit Roman College held a day of ceremonies to honor Galileo. When in 1614 a Dominican monk criticized Galileo from the pulpit, the leader of the Dominicans reprimanded the monk and apologized to Galileo on behalf of the entire order.
What did get Galileo into a bit of hot water with the Church was a conclusion he drew from one of his telescopic discoveries: He discovered that Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it just as the moon does the earth. He was fascinated by this, and from this and from observing the phases of Venus (which indicated that Venus orbits the sun, not the earth) he concluded that the earth goes around the sun (a view known as heliocentrism), not the sun around the earth (known as geocentrism).
Today Galileo's conclusion seems obvious. But it was not obvious at the time, and the truth is that Galileo was jumping to conclusions unsupported by the facts. The fact that four moons orbit Jupiter does not in any way prove that the earth goes around the sun and neither does the fact that Venus shows phases as it orbits the sun.
A popular theory at the time (known as the Tychoan theory after Tycho Brahe, the famous Danish astronomer who had formulated it) proposed that all the planets orbit the sun, and the sun with its retinue of planets then orbits the earth. This theory explained Galileo's observations quite well, and many pointed that out to Galileo. But Galileo insisted that what he had found was proof of the earth orbiting the sun. He eventually turned out to be right, but what he had at the time was not proof.
It was that lack of proof, along with his own abrasive personality, that precipitated his troubles with the Church. Galileo was known for his arrogant manner, and during his career there were a great number of people whom he had slighted, insulted, or in some way made into enemies. In 1615 some of them saw a chance to get back at Galileo by accusing him of heresy for his assertion that heliocentrism was proven fact. And so it was that the Church was prompted to inquire whether Galileo was holding views contrary to Scripture.
It must be pointed out that at the time the Church did not have an official position on whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa. Though geocentrism was the prevailing view, both views were widely held, and it was a matter of frequent debate among the science-minded.
Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others believed it was not. In fact, Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm his discoveries.
So when Galileo was accused of statements contrary to Scripture, the matter was referred to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Church's Master of Controversial Questions (quite a title, isn't it?). After careful study of the matter and of Galileo's evidence, Cardinal Bellarmine-who was later canonized and made a doctor of the Church-concluded that Galileo had not contradicted Scripture. But he did admonish Galileo not to teach that the earth moves around the sun unless he could prove it. Not an unreasonable admonition, really, but it had the effect of muzzling Galileo on the matter, because by then he realized he really did not have proof, though he still thought he was right.
And so it was that Galileo chafed under the cardinal's admonition for most of a decade, until in 1623 the luckiest event in his life occurred: Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a member of Galileo's scientific society and a great fan of Galileo, became Pope Urban VIII.
This was Galileo's dream come true: a pope who was learned in the sciences, who had not only read all of Galileo's works but was a friend and admirer as well. Galileo was soon summoned to Rome for an audience with the Pope to discuss the latest in astronomy, and Galileo took the opportunity to ask the Pope for his blessing to write a book about the motions of the solar system.
Pope Urban VIII readily agreed to Galileo's request, with one condition: The book must present a balanced view of both heliocentrism and geocentrism. The Pope also asked Galileo to mention the Pope's personal view of the matter, which was that bodies in the heavens perhaps move in ways that are not understood on earth (not an unreasonable view at the time). Galileo agreed, and set forth to write his book.
Had Galileo written his book as promised there would have been no problem. But as he had many times before, Galileo was bent not only on arguing his case but on humiliating those who disagreed with him, and he wrote a book far different from what he had promised.
As was common at the time, he wrote the book in the form of a discussion among three men: one a proponent of heliocentrism, one a proponent of geocentrism, and an interested bystander. Unfortunately, the "dialogue" was one-sided-Galileo portrayed the proponent of heliocentrism as witty, intelligent, and well-informed, with the bystander often persuaded by him, while the proponent of geocentrism (whom Galileo named "Simplicius") was portrayed as slow-witted, often caught in his own errors, and something of a dolt. This was hardly a balanced presentation of views.
But Galileo's greatest mistake was his final twisting of the knife: He fulfilled his promise to mention the Pope's view of the matter, but he did so by putting the Pope's words in the mouth of the dim-witted Simplicius. This was no subtle jab-the Pope's views were well-known, and everyone immediately realized that it was a pointed insult. This was too much for the Pope to bear. He was furious, and Galileo was summoned to Rome to explain himself.
This time things did not go well for Galileo. He was charged with a number of offenses, and though he was not imprisoned or tortured, he was shown the implements of torture. Galileo, by then an old man, was terrified, and agreed to something of a plea bargain: In return for publicly recanting his heliocentric view, he was allowed to return home with a sentence of permanent house arrest. He lived out his remaining years in his home, eventually going blind. Curiously, it was during his years of house arrest that he wrote his finest work, a book dealing with motion and inertia that is a cornerstone of modern physics.
It's interesting to note that during all of Galileo's conflicts with the Church, other astronomers, including the equally famous Johannes Kepler, were openly writing and teaching heliocentrism. Kepler even worked out and published the equations that describe the orbits of the planets about the sun. Yet he never had the problems Galileo did, in part because he had less to do with the Catholic Church but also because he did not have Galileo's biting arrogance.
So it was that Galileo's spiteful manner, his knack for turning even his best friends into enemies, repeatedly got him in trouble. His accomplishments cannot be overstated-Galileo is truly one of the giants of science-but in recounting his famous run-in with the Church, it's also important to remember that the root of his problems were not his scientific views but his own unbridled arrogance.
Wil Milan is an astrophotographer based in Arizona.Though he is not a Catholic, he takes great interest in the history of astronomy. Some of his work can be seen on the World Wide Web at www.astrophotographer.com.
Great summary of the man's life. I'm reading Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel right now. I recommend it highly. It's the second time I've read it and from my recollections, the summary you post is consistent with the book.
Correct. The difference between Galileo and evolutionary biology, however, is that the latter have an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution, whereas in Galileo's time the evidence for heliocentrism was still inconclusive. That, of course, has changed.
Don't expect that to be remembered by certain posters here. In fact, they're probably working up a rebuttal on a certain unnamed website right now.
This is a bunch of left-wing propaganda that is trying to put pressure on the Catholic Church to really "jump ship." The truth is that the Church hasn't taken any official stand on evolution or ID. Pope John Paul II may have said some positive words about evolution, but he was giving his personal opinion, not acting as a Catholic teacher.
Ping
For instance, it claims:
"It's interesting to note that during all of Galileo's conflicts with the Church, other astronomers, including the equally famous Johannes Kepler, were openly writing and teaching heliocentrism. Kepler even worked out and published the equations that describe the orbits of the planets about the sun. Yet he never had the problems Galileo did,"
This is technically true, but misleading. Kepler's book (along with Copernicus') was placed on the index shortly after Galileo's trial. In addition, a blanket condemanation of all heliocentric books was added shortly thereafter.
While it is true that before Galileo the Church was not hostile to the heliocentric view, and that many prominent churchmen held it as plausible, the Galileo affair prompted the Church to overreact and to some extent develop a hostility toward astronomy. The blanket prohibition on heliocentric books wasn't lifted until 1758, over 100 years after Newton's theories allowed for the irrefutable refutaiton of geocentrism.
The theological commision he authorized in 2004, chaired by the present pope, certainly did express official Church teaching when it declared no intrinsic conflict between the Catholic Faith and Darwinism.
Huh? The Church have never taught "Intelligent Design", that's nonsense. The Church teaches creationism; that the universe was created by God. The Cahtholic Church doesn't need to hide behind some nebulous "intelligent designer".
5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
Here's the paragraph that you either misunderstood or misrepresented:
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful.
All he was permitting was discussion of evolution, whether favorable or unfavorable.
Furthermore, Galileo got into trouble not so much for his theories as he did for writing a book that made the sitting pope look stupid.
Your'e correct. The Church in fact gave Galileo several passes. They even send him a letter telling him it's ok to work on his theory, but not to teach it as scientific fact. There were several reasons for this that never attention in modern anti-Catholic society. One was that Galileo's formula was WRONG. Though his theory turned out correct, his formula is still considered defective to this day, just as it was by most of his period peers.
The most notoriously erroneous charge about Galileo today is that the Church was trying to suppress science. It seems nobody can use logic anymore, because Galileo was taught science by Catholic scientists and professors. Galileo got himself into trouble because he became prideful and arrogant, he rebelled against authority and wrote stinging letters of attack against the Pope and cardinals, as well as against learned members of the scientific community. He refused every attempt at mediation.
He never was tortured in any way either, and his greatest 'ordeal' was that he had to stay under house arrest in the Bishop's manse where he studied and wrote until he became old. Some scholars say he was released long before his death. Leave it to the secular media and anti-Catholics to take this case and try to turn it into something it never was.
In a word, (or two), bu!!$#it. The Catholic Church's only official stance on Darwinism is that Catholics are allowed to study it. After that it's the liars, socialists and atheists out there who take it further than that. Pius XII in fact said that he believes, (and hopes), evolution will soon be lost in the dust of history.
Pope JPII never said ANYTHING officially, (as in an Encyclical). He spoke once publicly on the subject as a PRIVATE DOCTOR, and he (allegedly) stated that "evoution is more than just a theory". Many Catholic scholars believe the original statemnent was "evoultion has more than one theory", but after it was translated into English and twisted in the media it came out as the former. In any case, it was spoken in a speech to scientists, and was not officially or doctrinally declared to the Church faithful.
Wonder how long before I'm called an infidel...
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.