Imagine walking along the beach a country road and seeing a series of geometric shapes in the sand cornfield.
Spin John: IMAGINE
Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Would you be so kind as to provide the airing date of the episode of The Tonight Show, and the publication date of the issue of Time, so we can look up what was actually said?
Before Reagan was Nixon's "Southern Strategy."
Sounds to me like C.S. Lewis accepted biology as an inescapable fact, pretty much as the Pope does.
These debate could be more interesting if we could get past the YEC screamers.
Aquinasfan: "Partly, perhaps. But that wouldn't explain why a cardinal and a bishop were funding Copernicus' research efforts, and Copernicus' book was dedicated to the pope in an effort to protect his book from critics."
Excerpt:
In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems -- Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication, a twelve year effort, presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered). Galileo also warned the Church of a trap they were walking into:
"Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position--eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still."[16]
The Roman Catholic hierarchy and their Aristotlean-Ptolemaic advisors did not heed this advice. The Roman Curia promptly banned and confiscated Galileo's monumental work; and it became the basis for his second trial, censure, and lifetime house arrest by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633. The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis. They suspected him of holding heretical opinions condemned by the Church, which they ordered him to abjure [abandon a false opinion]. Seven of the ten Cardinals presiding signed his condemnation.[17]
The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."[18]
Historical Aftermath of the Galileo Affair
As new observations poured in, evidence grew supporting a Copernican view. The Roman Catholic Church leadership looked like fools, opening a wedge between science and religion that has increasingly widened to today. As Johnston put it, "To the popular mind, the Galileo affair is prima facie evidence that the free pursuit of truth became possible only after science 'Liberated' itself from the theological shackles of the Middle Ages. ...the Galileo case is one of the historic bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church -- the other two being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition."[19]
Applications and Lessons Today
Application to Science
Today, Science views Galileo's conflict with Church hierarchy as a great triumph of science over religion. Today Science is king, Nature is the Creator, and God (if He exists) is irrelevant. Galileo would not have viewed it thus, for his faith in the truth of God's Word remained strong. He recognized that God is King and Creator, not Nature.
Misapplication by Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists
Theistic evolutionists and Progressive Creationists often use a "Two Book" concept to reconcile or compromise the Bible with Science. They claim both the "Book of Nature" and the "Book of Scripture" are true or applicable in their own realm. But today, Science is always put first. Thus, religion must bow to scientific findings. The "Book of Scripture" must yield to and accommodate the "Book of Nature". Theologians must reinterpret or compromise Scripture to accommodate whatever today's Science says is true. When new scientific theories come along, Biblical interpretations must change accordingly.
The Two-Book concept was encouraged by Galileo's view that scientific descriptions in the Bible were not important, for the common man could not understand them. Galileo used the same terminology. For example, Galileo said, "The Book of Nature is written in (clearly-understood) mathematics."[20] Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[21]
Lessons to Religious Authority
The Roman Curia, the religious authorities, imposed Aristotle's view upon the Bible, allowing Greek philosophy to influence its theology. They steadfastly maintained their traditions and erroneous interpretations of Scripture[22] above increasing scientific observations to the contrary. Galileo's published works remained on the Roman Church's Index of Prohibited Books until 1835. Not until 1981 did the Roman Catholic Church officially forgive Galileo.[23]
Van Bebber aptly states, "The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound Biblical teachings must be abandoned. Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness."[24]
Lesson to All
A final lesson and warning applies to the Church, Science, and the modern Creationist movement today. Beware of holding steadfastly to a particular interpretation of Scripture and/or a scientific model, which may be in error. For instance, there are various scientific challenges to the Young-Earth Creationist position. We should hold many of our scientific views and their corresponding Biblical interpretations loosely. For we will never have all the right answers this side of heaven."
Not nearly as scary as the list of "A Few Great Books" recommended for reading on your site (at least the science texts). If this is where your understanding of science comes from, it's no wonder you have issues with these theories. You might want to read some better books (one that reflect the progress of mainstream science). (Hint: neither the theories of evolution nor relativity have any real problems)
Oh, indeed, pursue away! Behe likes to compare ID to the Big Bang. The Big Bang had testable implications. That is, it predicted something previously unsuspected and the something eventually turned up.
That's all ID needs to do. Predict something unsuspected and then go find it. Actually discover something instead of trying to undiscover things that we do know.
That would be most welcome. That's also the last thing ID-ers are going to do. Just for one thing, ID doesn't predict ANYTHING.
So you just signed in to say that? Groovy. I'm curious what you think is going on in the numerous refereed Journals of Micro-biology? Are you of the opinion that tangible, positive forensic evidence of ID found in the genes wouldn't be published in the journals? I guess it's the influence of all those qualified professional scientists who'd prefer to decline a guaranteed lock on a Nobel Prize and a chair at Oxford.
Just out of curiosity, who would you nominate for your "qualified professional"?
Public debates are for deciding political issues, and are a pretty lousy device, even at that. If you have something to say, out with it. If that something is just that this is an ineffectual forum, and having a handful of opinionated blowhards go at it orally in public is better,...well, your opinion is duly noted.
Dembski's definition seems as coherent as any: " ID is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
I assume that Dembski's definition is what the ID supporters are defending.
Strindberg's "Student" claims that analogy is the highest form of reasoning: once one is one thus twice two is two. (The Student gets in trouble on thrice three.)
This is releveant how?
Dang!!!
232 and I just NOW get pinged!
(Has this thread been fun yet??)
I enjoyed using the h1 tag, and credited you with inspiring me. How much more fun could it be?
;^)
LOL!!
Now you're just messing with me. ;)
|
Like this!
 |
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.