Posted on 10/02/2023 1:27:57 AM PDT by spirited irish
Over the past century, we have retold the story of witches as proto-feminists being persecuted by the patriarchy for no good reason other than misogynism. But as I have written in the past, witches regularly confessed to practicing human sacrifice. Babies in particular were the victims of their efforts. Often these sacrifices were not simply killing the babies (and then burning or burying the remains). Instead, parts of the babies were used to advance the magic of the witches in some way. Sometimes the babies would be eaten to gain dark knowledge. Sometimes the babies would be used as an ingredient in some potent brew.
Getting babies for these purposes required effort. Witches would sometimes masquerade as midwives for closer access. Consider this ancient account of one witch’s confession.
“Finally, another woman in the diocese of Strasburg confessed that she had killed more children than she could count. And she was caught in this way. She had been called from one town to another to act as midwife to a certain woman, and, having performed her office, was going back home. But as she went out of the town gate, the arm of a newly born child fell out of the cloak she had wrapped around her, in whose folds the arm had been concealed. This was seen by those who were sitting in the gateway, and when she had gone on, they picked up from the ground what they took to be a piece of meat; but when they looked more closely and saw that it was not a piece of meat, but recognized it by its fingers as a child’s arm…” – Malleus Maleficarum, 1486 AD.
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotandliberty.com ...
ping
Certainly there is such a thing as unethical scientific practices, such as the Nazis’ use of it on living human subjects. But to say “science = witchcraft” because of some bad examples is like saying all Germans are evil. The natural and the supernatural are two distinct things, like science and religion, or witchcraft.
"Rigid adherence to scientism—as opposed to a healthy respect for science—is all too prevalent in our world today. Rather than leading to a deeper understanding of our universe, this worldview actually undermines real science and marginalizes morality and religion." "In this book, celebrated philosopher J. P. Moreland exposes the selfdefeating nature of scientism and equips us to recognize scientism’s harmful presence in different aspects of culture, emboldening our witness to biblical Christianity and arming us with strategies for the integration of faith and science—the only feasible path to genuine knowledge."
The examples more closely align pro-abortionists with witches.
True. Nevertheless, there is a 'science,' meaning knowledge of how to go about performance of the work at hand. This kind of 'science' rightly falls into the category 'scientism,' meaning the esoteric or occult science. From the Renaissance onward there has been a revival of occult science disguised as hard science.
oooh, the whispers doth flow!
I am going to merge those who think, in 2023, thusly, with those who hold the bible when declaring, as was once declared to me, in my house in 1999, “that the writing of science fiction is witchcraft”!
(good luck with all that!)
That’s true, there is a lot of misuse of science today. Some consider it like a religion, literally. Others try to use it thinking they can disprove the existence of God, which is impossible according to the scientific method itself. All in all, I think too many atheists misusing science have spoiled the broth, so to speak.
Scientism is modern occult science disguised as hard science.
Occult science emerged out of the Renaissance, the time when ancient Mysteries, Egyptian magic science, Kabalah (magic science), Gnosticism, Buddhism, alchemy, reincarnation, evolution, and Karma (magic science) entered into the heart of Christendom and embraced by certain powerfully influential Christians at the top of church and society.
“Supernatural” is a word we use to describe things we do not understand from a “natural” perspective, but who is to say whether at some point we gain an understanding that renders the former the latter? As a wholistic outlook on reality, the prospect of an eternal Creator bringing all things into existence and governing them is not all that fanciful or mysterious, but actually a rather natural way to understand the universe, much like science does, yet with great limitations which begin with flawed observers.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”
Any ‘scientist’ that says otherwise, is a performer and believer of witchcraft.
That’s a possibility. That is, that the natural and the supernatural is simply a division between what we currently know and don’t know. However, there is another possibility that there are things beyond the natural universe that are not from here, but temporary visitors so to speak. Who can say.
Was this why Galileo and Copernicus were treated such?
“ Others try to use it thinking they can disprove the existence of God,…”
I’m 73, in my entire life I’ve never encountered anyone involved in trying to disprove the existence of god. Lots of people don’t believe but that’s about as far as it goes. Most skeptics understand the logic of the null hypothesis
Your experience differs from mine, then. Richard Dawkins, for one, does it all the time.
Arguing for a position of non-belief is very different from trying to prove a null hypothesis. I don’t believe there’s a bison in your kitchen but neither you nor I can prove that. See the difference?
Yes and I can’t prove there’s life on other planets. But then people don’t generally jump to the conclusion that there is none, based solely on the lack of evidence. But they’ll often do the same about the existence of God, and claim that’s science.
One issue neither Galileo nor Copernicus could resolve was the parallax. That took centuries.
That aside, Galileo was his own worst enemy, a prime example of a nerd who didn’t know when to keep his mouth shut. His greatest contributions to science were in the field of optics.
The statement is sometimes made, not only by skeptics, but also occasionally by well-meaning Christians, that, because the Church wrongly opposed the scientific theories of Copernicus and Galileo in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, therefore Christians should not oppose the theory of evolution today. Is this a valid comparison and a logical conclusion?
History being what it is, some details of the Galileo story are disputed, including the title of this article (Galileo is supposed to have muttered something like this after he recanted). However, the broad outline is as follows.
The Church fathers of the Middle Ages, in the absence of any substantial scientific views to the contrary, adopted and taught as dogma the theory of Ptolemy of Alexandria (ad 85–165) that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that the sun, moon, planets, and stars all revolved around the earth in a series of inter-nesting spheres. This is called a geocentric or earth-centred system, and is known as the Ptolemaic theory or the Ptolemaic system. Although the Bible is not specific about which revolves around what, the Latin fathers thought that verses such as Psalms 19:6 and 93:1 supported Ptolemy’s views.
Copernicus
In the sixteenth century, a Polish Latin scholar named Nicolaus Copernicus began to have other ideas. Although he had no telescope, he concluded from his visual observations and calculations that the earth was not the centre of the universe but only of the moon’s orbit, that the earth rotated daily on its axis, and that it revolved annually around the sun. In 1514, he circulated among friends a short paper summarizing these ideas. His theory challenged the Church’s teachings that the earth was the centre of all change and decay and that around it was the changeless universe.
To avoid controversy, Copernicus put off publishing the full mathematical description of his heliocentric (or sun-centred) system until, in 1540, he permitted a friend to take the manuscript of his great work De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) to Germany for printing. He received a copy on May 24, 1543, and then, showing a fine sense of timing, died the same day.1
Galileo
The real controversy came with the work of Galileo Galilei (1564–1642). In late 1609 and early 1610, Galileo, then a professor of mathematics at the University of Padua, was the first person to confirm the Copernican system by using the telescope. He improved the simple telescope by building an instrument of threefold magnification, and further quickly improved it to a power of 32. With this he observed (inter alia) the movement of sunspots across the face of the sun. This, he maintained, proved that Copernicus was right and Ptolemy wrong.2
In 1616, Galileo was ordered by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the chief theologian of the Church, that he must henceforth neither “hold nor defend” this doctrine, although it could still be discussed as a mere “mathematical supposition”.3 Then, in 1632, Galileo published his great work Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic and Copernican.
For this he was hauled before the Inquisition in Rome on “vehement suspicion of heresy”. He was found guilty of having “held and taught” the Copernican doctrine and, on June 21, 1633, was ordered to recant. The next day he recited a formula in which he “abjured, cursed and detested” his past errors. His sentence carried imprisonment, but this was immediately commuted by the Pope to house-arrest, which remained in effect for the last eight years of his life.3
Should Christians oppose evolution?
So then, in the light of the above, should Christians oppose the theory of evolution today?
It is not a comparison of like with like in three pivotal aspects. These are:
The Church of Galileo’s day was a monolithic structure in which there were no men of science of the calibre of Copernicus or Galileo in positions of authority. Today the Church is made up of many different denominations, comprising many different congregations, in which there are many men and women of science in positions of leadership or influence, who hold to the creationist position and whose scholarship is not one whit less than that of any evolutionist.
Galileo, by using his telescope to view the sunspots and to track the motion of the planets with respect to the sun, was able to do repeatable experiments of observation to confirm the Copernican theory. Today, there is no experiment that any evolutionist has ever done (much less a repeatable one) either to observe or to confirm the theory of evolution. Put another way: the matter of the earth’s motion was in principle capable of test by the scientific method in terms of settling the question once and for all; today the origins issue is in principle not capable of being so resolved. As Dr Henry Morris says in his book Scientific Creationism: “A scientific investigator, be he ever so resourceful and brilliant, can neither observe nor repeat origins!”4
Although the Church fathers in Galileo’s day mistakenly thought that the Bible supported a geocentric system, there was nothing intrinsically atheistic about the notion that the earth moved. By contrast, the theory of evolution is a non-theistic or atheistic explanation of origins and as such has become the scientific ‘justification’ for the anti-God belief system of humanism, which pervades society today. Christians who believe in evolution would do well to consider that while not every evolutionist is an atheist, all atheists are evolutionists. Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin’s exponent, Thomas Huxley, and one of the foremost evolutionists of his day, stated in 1959 that Darwin’s real achievement was to “remove the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion”.5
As well as the above points of difference, there are also, sadly, some similarities between the scientific and theological viewpoints of Galileo’s day and those of today.
Geocentric Astronomers
As with all erroneous theories, there were some things that the Ptolemaic system did not explain, such as the apparent backwards-and-forwards motion of Mars across the sky. To account for this and other anomalies the geocentric astronomers invented a complex system of planetary movement involving large circles called deferents and small circles called epicycles. By the sixteenth century, this system had become so vast and fantastically involved that Copernicus wrote in the Preface to De Revolutionibus that the astronomical tradition that he inherited had finally created a monster.6
Yet so ingrained had the idea become that the earth was the centre of the universe that hardly any of the astronomers of the day heeded the growing unreality and impossibility of the whole system. The theory had become more important than the evidence necessary to sustain it.
Today the theory of evolution has assumed a similar state of fixation in the minds of those who espouse it. Some biologists, knowing that the crucial evidence of transitional forms is totally missing from the fossil record, have invented ‘hopeful monsters’ in an attempt to leapfrog the gaps, rather than admit that the theory is wrong. Once again a theory has become more important than the evidence necessary to sustain it. [Editorial note, July, 2014: For a discussion of ‘hopeful monsters’, as promulgated by Goldschmidt and Gould, see the author’s article Which came first: the Archaeopteryx or the dinosaur egg?.]
Theologically the sixteenth-and seventeenth-century Church was clearly in the wrong, because it was using an outside or extra-biblical worldview (the Ptolemaic) to force a particular interpretation on to Scripture. Theistic evolutionists today are similarly in error when they begin with the extra-biblical evolutionary world view and then try to force this on to the Bible.
The lesson of Galileo is not that the Church should not oppose the theory of evolution, but that it should. It is ironic that the Church today, by and large, has not learnt the lesson of history and still insists on taking a popular worldview as its authority, instead of allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter. When this latter course is followed, the biblical evidence does not allow evolution/geologic column ideas at all. And by sticking to this principle of interpretation we avoid making dangerous errors in both science and hermeneutics.
References and notes
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 16, 1987, p. 815.
ibid, Vol. 19, p. 640.
ibid, p. 641
Except we have clear, undeniable proof that life can arise on a planet. We have no such support for a deity.
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.