Invoking The Voyagers Against Id Options

[ljk4-1]

Cornell President Rawlings Condemns Intelligent Design

Drawing from sources ranging from Cornell's founders to Voyager
space missions, Interim President Hunter R. Rawlings III condemned
the push to teach intelligent design in public schools Friday. The
attack came during the president's State of...

http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/...4/435c7762cf891


"The desire to understand the world and the desire to reform it are the two great engines of progress." - Bertrand Russell

[mike]

Yeah, they say that now, now that virtually everyone sees what benefits science has to offer. Back in the olden days they didn't want Galileo using telescopes, and the Earth wasn't really round, and everything rotated around the Earth, and oh yeah, if some of our priests happen to be a little naughty, we'll just cover it up rather than ever do ANYTHING about it...

God sure is a wacky fella!

[ljk4-1]

Yeah, they say that now, now that virtually everyone sees what benefits science has to offer.  Back in the olden days they didn't want Galileo using telescopes, and the Earth wasn't really round, and everything rotated around the Earth, and oh yeah, if some of our priests happen to be a little naughty, we'll just cover it up rather than ever do ANYTHING about it...

God sure is a wacky fella!

Despite the perception fostered during the last few centuries as science became a split culture from art and religion, the Roman Catholic Church was the big promoter of science and knowledge for Europe during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Like any politicial institution, they just didn't like having their power and authority threatened.

Galileo was not a modest man. He was right about many things in astronomy (except that he thought the Moon had no effect on the tides, but hey, Newton wouldn't be born until the year he died in 1642), and he wanted to make sure everyone else knew it, too. The Catholic Church would likely have "adjusted" their worldview to include the Copernican one given time, but Galileo forced the issue, essentially backing the Church into a corner.

Not a smart political move, but then again, how many scientists to this day are politically savy? Galileo also used words from the Pope in one of his Dialogues that made him look foolish. Bad move Number 2. This was a Pope who had the birds in the Vatican courtyard killed because their singing and chirping annoyed him. Plus he was no dummy, either. Thus the big fallout and the Science vs. Religion issues to this day.

Yes, I know there are many more complex details to the whole story, but this is the essence of it. It is not as clear-cut as some groups would like it to seem.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Yes, I know there are many more complex details to the whole story, but this is the essence of it.  It is not as clear-cut as some groups would like it to seem.

True.

But it is for his science that Galileo was condemned. From where the problem.


I think that, from the Catholic power, condemning science (or at least ignoring it for centuries) was a very bad move, much more serious than the awkwarness of Galileo. They bear the responsibility of what happened after: loss of spirituality (the science speech looking much more "realistic" with its hard evidence, than the spiritual speech) loss of ethics ("if there is nothing after death, why to bother about respecting others")

Spirituality and science do not speak of the same thing, but they speak in the same world, for the same human beings. So they MUST dialogue, and this dialogue MUST start by recognizing each other, and at very first in not interfering. (By interference I understand creationists who pretend to do science with Intelligent Design, or scientist who pretend to do spirituality or ethics by predicting that there is nothing after death).