Last year, the Joplin Globe had a pre-election feature it called the 100 Words Project. It presented questions to the candidates for our 7th District congressional seat—eventually won by Ozark Billy Long—and they we
re all required to answer with 100 words or less.
I suggested at the time that one of the questions should have been:
How old is the earth?
A nice discussion ensued and I endured some criticism for wanting to ask such a question, but my point was that the answer to it would be quite revealing.
Now comes news that during a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Thursday Governor Rick Perry was actually asked my question by nine-year-old Sam Beane, who was (unfortunately) prodded by his mother:
SAM BEANE: How old do you think the earth is?
PERRY: How old do I think the earth is? You know what? I don’t have any idea. I know it’s pretty old, so it goes back a long, long way. I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how long, how old the earth is. I hear your mom was asking about evolution. You know, it’s a theory that’s out there. It’s got some gaps in it, but in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools, because I figured you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.
Now, there is a lot of ignorance woven into that statement, but the ignorance is willful, not accidental.
Of course we know how old the earth is, although it would be technically correct to say we don’t know with absolute certainty, that is, to the minute, how old it is.
And of course evolution is a theory, but it is a theory in the scientific sense: it accurately describes and explains a large set of observations of nature and 
makes falsifiable predictions about future observations. Such scientific theories can never be ultimately proven, only ultimately disproven.
Science doesn’t make God-like pronouncements about the nature of the universe; it only offers theories that can be tested over time, and when they have been tested over time and found reliable, they become more probable as reliable explanations of how things work.
Evolution theory is thus the foundation—rock solid—of modern biology. There simply is no dispute about it among biologists.
Which leads to Perry’s phony claim that “we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools.” Even in God-crazed Texas they don’t teach creationism in government schools, particularly since the Supreme Court—before it was controlled by conservatives—put the kibosh on such nonsense in 1987.
But the most dishonest thing Governor Perry said was what he said last, looking nine-year-old Sam Beane in the eye:
I figured you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.
No, Governor, he doesn’t know what’s right at the age of nine. He needs to be taught what is right. In this case he needs to be taught what science understands about the universe. And he needs to be taught it no matter how much it conflicts with fundamentalist religion, no matter how much it might shake up Iron Age conceptions of the nature of life.
Sam Beane did ask a damned important question and he got a damned disturbing answer from a damned disturbing presidential candidate.
Which is why the question should be asked of all candidates who want to represent us. It tells us something about each one’s state of mind and the quality of analysis each will bring to the table in order to find solutions to our nation’s problems.
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
David
/ August 19, 2011Let me ask you a question: Why can’t both be right? If you consider that the Bible says only THAT it happened (that God created the universe), and that science explains the details, with some self-admitted gaps, both are right…and both should be taught-that when taken into proper context, both are correct.
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ August 19, 2011David,
In this free country anyone is free to believe in the Bible as he wishes, so long as he understands the difference between religion and science, a difference which Duane explained just about as well as it can be done. But when those two conflict, as in Duane’s excellent example about the age of the earth, then so far as education goes, fact should prevail.
There is a good reason why the founders prohibited the establishment of a state religion and this example shows it as well as any I have ever read. You say that ” . . . when taken into proper context, both are correct.” I disagree. By the Bible, the earth was created in only 6 days and, if you add up the Genesis account it is only about 6,000 years old. That is not correct. That is not even close, David.
I see the Bible for what it is, a collection of, myths, oral legends, and disparate writings by mostly anonymous authors that represents the adopted ethos of people united in a common religious belief. You are free to interpret it any way you please. But please don’t propose, as Governor Perry does, forcing your religious beliefs on everyone else through the public education system. This is the land of the free, and that includes the freedom not only to seek truth anywhere, but to be free of government subjecting young people to religion disguised as science.
Jim
LikeLike
juan don
/ August 19, 2011Jim,
Well said.
LikeLike
Rawhead
/ August 19, 2011Agreed.
LikeLike
David
/ August 19, 2011Well said, Jim, but not always accurate.
First of all, there’s no conflict between the Bible and science. I don’t believe the Bible states anything about the age of the earth. The clue is the many places where it says “To you a day is an age, and an age is a day” or something similar. There are people who take the literalist view of the Bible (which is different than taking the Bible literally), and they’re free to choose that.
I’m glad you said to keep science and religion from mixing, because that’s when we get into trouble, as Galileo proved. So, from a religious point of view, God created the universe. Does not even start to explain all the mechanics, does it? It seems like science often tries to state that we don’t need God anymore, as Stephen Hawking states in the show “Curiosity” many times. And that’s an attitude I want to see extracted from science classes in school. And you’re right, we shouldn’t subject young people to religion disguised as science…but you should follow that with the reverse-we shouldn’t subject our young people to science disguised as religion, either.
Also, regarding the founders, what they prohibited was state sponsored religion, they did not propose ‘separation of church and state’. They wanted to avoid what Henry VIII did, and what China is doing today. Meaning that everyone is allowed to celebrate their faith. Or lack of it. Let science teach their way without disparaging what the Bible says, and we’ll be just fine.
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ August 19, 2011Sorry David, but I disagree that “there’s no conflict between the Bible and science.” The Bible is chock full of things that science can’t accept, things like talking burning bushes and miracles. However, science is not anti-religion because there’s no conspiracy of scientists for assaulting religion. At least none that I’m aware of. If you feel that science disparages the Bible, I suggest that is only because religious people challenge statements about science, such as the discussion here.
The mere fact that science can’t explain everything doesn’t weaken science – in fact it strengthens its case. It’s just that, as Duane explained, for a scientist to accept something it must pass the test of reproducibility. So far as I can tell, nobody here who has commented wants to deny you the right to any religious beliefs you want, so long as those don’t conflict with other people’s rights to believe as they wish. Science is not an organization, its a philosophy of common sense characterized by rational skepticism. Its only agenda is to seek out understanding that is subject to test and, as Duane said, it has been extremely successful.
I wish you well, David. Christianity is excellent in many ways, as are other religions which tout the Golden Rule and similar things. The only problem I see with your comments is that you feel religion should compete with science for people’s minds. It shouldn’t. Faith is different from scientific understanding.
Jim
LikeLike
David
/ August 22, 2011Actually, there are plausible scientific reasons for burning bushes. As for miracles, the explanation would be “Because God can do whatever he wants to-he controls the universe.
The biggest way science conflicts with religion is, as an example, when Stephen Hawking asks a question like “Do we need God?” and then goes on to show that he (knows) how it all works. Actually, I don’t think science disparages the Bible, as long as the two are taken where they belong. Religion only explains that God created the universe, doesn’t get into mechanics. Science explains how, and accepts the that, whether or not science includes God or not.
Next you say that, for a scientist to accept something, it must be reproduceable. To that I can say this: “Reproduce evolution.” (I say this with a smile because I believe the Bible also believes evolution as a concept.)
And if that’s what you see (that I think religion should compete with science for people’s minds), the problem is with you. I think no such thing. I agree with your last statement. It’s when folks take Stephen Hawking’s extreme that I object. As long as science isn’t taught as a religion and religion isn’t taught as a science, we’re all good.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ August 19, 2011David,
I appreciate the question very much.
Why can’t both be right? Obviously, they can. It’s certainly possible that God, using something like evolution, created and developed life on earth. And it’s certainly possible that God created the larger universe ex nihilo or some other way. Let me explain, though, why the question of God having a hand in the evolutionary process or creating the universe doesn’t belong in a science classroom.
Science simply cannot test the proposition that God exists, let alone that he did this or that. And science is an empirical enterprise. It explains and predicts based on experimentation, and I know of no way that science could conduct experiments to either confirm (a probabilistic confirmation, of course) or falsify the proposition that God exists and he acts this or that way in the universe. That simply isn’t within the scope of modern science to explore.
The systematic knowledge-seeking endeavor that we call science, which has served us stunningly well, is in danger when, in young minds, it is confused with claims derived from ancient religious texts, which themselves were written in pre-scientific times and with no understanding of the rudiments of the scientific method.
So, yes, God could have created the universe and evolution, but that “theory” has no place in the science classroom and young people need to be confronted with the fact of evolution (fact as defined by science). And if people unfortunately want to fill their kids’ heads full of Iron Age nonsense (that God created the world in six days, for instance, not the idea that there is a God), then in our country they are free to do so, either at home or in those citadels of scientific ignorance, evangelical and fundamentalist churches.
Duane
LikeLike
David
/ August 19, 2011I agree. Science should not impose itself as religion, and religion should not impose itself as science.
There’s a lot that fundamentalists teach about the Bible that can be believed or not, the young earth crowd among them. The Christian Church, which was totally Catholic for 1500 years, didn’t teach that. So what you’re doing is magnifying the fundamentalists, a very small minority, if vocal, and minimizing the rest of Christianity, more than 1 billion people. In fact, throughout history Catholic and Muslim thinkers have proposed and accepted elements of the theory of evolution, while insisting upon the supremacy of God in the process.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ August 19, 2011David,
First, the reason I am magnifying the fundamentalists (and evangelicals) is because they have their teeth set deep in one of our two political parties and they control much, really most, of the debate in the Republican primary. I find that disturbing and dangerous and, as a former conservative and evangelical, I intend to do my little part to combat it.
Second, among fundamentalists, there is not “a lot” of what they teach that “can be believed or not.” That is the nature of fundamentalism, I’m afraid. One would quickly be given the left foot of fellowship for picking and choosing among the “fundamentals,” in most of the rock-hard conservative Christian churches I have known.
Third, as Sam Harris has written about the so-called “moderate” Muslims, I believe that Christians, perhaps such as yourself, who believe in evolution (Francis Collins, NIH director comes to mind), have a duty to engage fundamentalists and evangelicals on this issue. And after awhile, if they remain recalcitrant, the only thing left is ridicule and embarrassment, so the world is not made safe for such nonsensical beliefs.
Finally, I’m aware of the history of the Christian church and much less aware of the history of Islamic faith, but I’m not sure I would exactly characterize either one as being open-minded (not that you did, generally speaking) on scientific breakthroughs. Sure, the Catholic Church has officially sanctioned the theory of evolution, but its historical relationship with science is not one to be proud of.
When I was a Bible-believing Christian (I’m merely what I call a Martin Gardner theist now), I was a believer in theistic evolution, along the lines you suggest. I had read too much science prior to becoming a baptized Christian to ignore it and become a creationist, even though my position did set me outside the mainstream of my evangelical faith.
I appreciate your comments and response, and I hope you understand why I write against the fundamentalists and evangelicals, who I believe are leading millions upon millions of children around the world astray into a dangerous set of theo-political beliefs.
Duane
LikeLike
David
/ August 22, 2011No, the Catholic Church has not officially embraced evolution, though she says it’s not incompatible with Genesis, and says we can believe either way (I know prominent Catholics who disavow macroevolution, but embrace microevolution [which is in the Bible, by the way]).
I don’t know what you mean about the Church’s historical relationship with science-the Catholic Church made most of the scientific breakthroughs in the 1900 years after Christ.
I guess my only request would be, if you single out fundamentalists and evangelicals, could you make that clear?
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ August 22, 2011David,
Okay, I admit it. I slightly overstated John Paul II’s embrace of evolution. The relevant phrasing here is that evolution has now become “more than a hypothesis” to the Church. You can read his statement for yourself, but since he was referencing Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical (Humani Generis), it is fair to say that he went far beyond Pius XII’s permission for Catholics “to form their own opinions” with one glaring exception: origins.
Pius XII wrote:
Now, John Paul II, in embracing the legitimacy of evolution beyond the merely hypothetical, said this in conjunction with Pius XII:
This leads us to your question, which was:
Okay. Let me make it clear. First, the Catholic Church as an institution is not the same as, say, individual Jesuits pursuing scientific enterprises. The institution’s official spokesman is the Pope.
Second, and more important, from the above quotes, it is obvious that the Catholic Church has had not just a negative historical relationship with the scientific community (though, as you suggest, not completely negative), but is has an ongoing—ongoing—negative relationship with the scientific enterprise.
To wit, Pius XII’s and John Paul II’s statements that certain real or potential scientific theories are a) not authorized for acceptance by Catholics and b) “are incompatible with the truth about man,” demonstrate that the Church has an ultimate problem with science. Those real or potential theories that are off limits have to do, of course, with the origin of the human soul or spirit or the nonexistence of either or both.
Now, my friend, when official and institutionally incontrovertible spokesmen for the Church (the Popes) rule out a priori a current or potential finding of science, the Church is not exercising a proper, positive relationship with that science.
Duane
LikeLike
David
/ August 22, 2011How does saying that “Catholics must believe that God created the soul” in any way hinder Catholics belief or use of science? A soul is not a scientific entity.
Regarding JPII’s statement, don’t forget the previous paragraph, which tells us why the quote you presented is meaningful:
The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has given us a magnificent exposition of this doctrine, which is one of the essential elements of Christian thought. The Council recalled that “man is the only creature on earth that God wanted for its own sake”. In other words, the human person cannot be subordinated as a means to an end, or as an instrument of either the species or the society; he has a value of his own. He is a person. By this intelligence and his will, he is capable of entering into relationship, of communion, of solidarity, of the gift of himself to others like himself. St. Thomas observed that man’s resemblance to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, because his relationship with the object of his knowledge is like God’s relationship with his creation (cf. Summa Theologica I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1um) But even beyond that, man is called to enter into a loving relationship with God himself, a relationship which will find its full expression at the end of time, in eternity. Within the mystery of the risen Christ the full grandeur of this vocation is revealed to us (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet”, Humani Generis).
The Catholic position is basically that, if you exclude the presence of God from your work, like Stephen Hawking does, then nothing else matters. Scientists tell us how the heavens go, Religion tells us how to go to heaven.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ August 22, 2011David,
The kind of dualism presented is, as you say, not part of science.
Which, of course, is the point.
It appears to me to be grossly anti-scientific to exclude a possible explanation of what we might think of as the “soul” of men and women but which might be merely an “emergent” property of complex physical organization in the brain, for instance, and nothing other-worldly. That possible explanation is definitely labeled as out of bounds for Catholic believers.
Therefore, it is not a matter of science excluding a priori “the presence of God” from any explanatory paradigm, but a matter of the Church excluding from its members’ acceptance any possible scientific explanation that might account for the kind of dualism that most folks believe in. I’m not saying that is on the horizon, but I am saying that to exclude a naturalistic explanation for such things, even if one were available, is anti-science.
Look, I understand that there are limits to what one can believe and still call oneself a Catholic. But, David, that’s sort of my point here. Ultimately, as science encroaches on more and more ground that used to be held firmly by the Church (the geocentric view of the universe, for instance), the Church will likely find itself in an ultimate battle with science.
It may be, as most earnest Christians hope, that science will run up against a right wall of achievement, in terms of explaining all of the mysteries of the universe, but that is at best a hope, as none of us can even imagine the kinds of things that science a millennium from now will be able to explain.
Duane
LikeLike
David
/ August 24, 2011Actually, there are very few such limits. Actually, only one. Excluding God. Stephen Hawking states that we have no need of God. That’s outside the limit. Hey, I believe in evolution, and I believe the Big Bang theory. I also believe that the Bible is 100% true. There’s fundies and scientists who would think it’s impossible to believe science and believe religion, but when put in their proper place, I just believe that you can’t even have science without God.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ August 20, 2011To all,
A good exchange it seems to me. Perhaps this perspective can help as well.
The human mind, way back when or now, can only go so far. Sure we can accurately determine the approximate age of the earth scientifically (about 4 billion years it seems) as well as the age of the universe (about 13 billion as best determined so far). Beyond those limits however we have not a clue from science YET. But we will someday be able to scientifically probe and go beyond those given “boundaries” today.
Another way of thinking. We know the earth is about 4 Billion years of age but yet have little idea has to how LIFE began or came to earth. Science now seems to think that some microbes “came to earth” via asteroids are such “space travel” some time after the horredous forces, stellar forces that formed the earth.
OK so far, I hope for clear thinking men and women. Some of us can logically “follow that science”. But even clear thinking people hit a “boundary” somewhere, like if life came from an asteroid to earth where did it originate?
There, at those boundaries that science cannot yet take us we confront at least the concept of GOD.
Ancient men could not understand in any way a solar eclispe, etc and they “created a “god”” to explain such phenomena. Well today our logical and “thinking” boundaries have been extented far beyond ancient men, but we still have the same boundaries as they did. Our are just farther out there today because of science.
In that sense “religion” or a concept of powers far beyond the minds of men will ALWAYS be among us, in my view. At least until the mind of man becomes all knowing and thus infinite.
Anson
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ August 20, 2011I agree with Anson that this post started a good and interesting exchange, even though we have debated the topic before in these blogs.
Duane’s reference to Martin Gardner caught my attention because I have always admired Gardner’s clever mathematical columns in Scientific American magazine and elsewhere, but I hadn’t known of his interest in religion. So I followed Duane’s link to Gardner’s Wikipedia page. It contained a summary statement of his take on religion that I think is worthy of reprinting on this post. (My compulsion to make things complete is on display here. Probably the same thing that drives me to crossword puzzles and Sudoku.)
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ August 22, 2011Jim,
Thanks for posting that excerpt about Gardner. He was born and raised in Tulsa as something of a fundamentalist Christian, which is partly why I was attracted to him. He was also a great admirer of Chesterton, which for me sealed the deal.
I love the man and love his philosophical and debunking works, although, unlike you, I would likely be lost in his mathematical mazes.
I kick myself for not writing about him (I didn’t know he had passed at the time) in May of last year, but a wonderful obit in The New York Times is available.
Duane
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ August 22, 2011I recall Gardner’s obit but enjoyed reading it again. What a marvelous man he was, and for such a towering intellect of common sense, modest too! Thanks, Duane.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ August 20, 2011Jim,
Said another way, God starts where human reason can go no farther.
That is not anti-God in my view though it is certainly anti-Bible to a degree, a book constructed by man. And of course even saying such is a terrifying and terribly wrong thing to say to people of great and strong “faith”. If I said it 400 years ago I would have been burned at the stake in some even most “western” and thus “religious societies”.
Anson
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ August 20, 2011Just so, Anson. That’s exactly why the founders inserted the religion exclusion.
It only took the Roman Catholic Church 360 years to admit Galileo was right. Who says religion isn’t flexible?
LikeLike
David
/ August 22, 2011Jim, I wonder what you think the Church’s problem with Galileo was, exactly?
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ August 22, 2011David,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo
LikeLike
David
/ August 22, 2011Oh, so you lete Wikipedia do your thinking for you…for what it’s worth, that’s a pretty good article. The truth is, it was the fact that Galileo could not prove his theory with the instruments he had, and his crossing theology with astronomy which landed him in hot water. If he had kept theology out of it, he would have been ok. And, like I said below, it was philosphers who sicced the Inquisition on him, and the modern idea of what the Inquisition was is incorrect. It was, simply, the Church’s juridical body.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ August 22, 2011Anson,
I have a notion that a lot of people agree with you to some degree or another, but they are, as you suggest, a little gun shy.
And by the way, I doubt very much the Inquisitors would have burned you at the stake. I think they would have locked you in a room with Ross Perot and forbade you from uttering the phrase, “We spend too much money.”
That would be real torment, would it not?
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ August 20, 2011to all,
But to go back to the original intent of the blog…..
Consider a man of faith that also accepts the essential truth in the scientific method, apolitically and “honestly” rendered. His faith picks up where science leaves us “hanging” in the great and as yet unknown (but not necessaryily unknowable in the future).
I admire such faith and trust the man (or woman) to understand his own logical limits.
Now consider a politician running for office. Suppose he places his faith above science and in doing so denies the results of the scientific method, applied as suggested above. In the “heart” of such a man or woman it would seem that faith is better than reason or logic at least in some matters.
I do not admire such a politician just as I would not admire such a politician that denies any faith whatsoever, an atheist.
However, what if the latter politician indeed convinced me that he could do something seemingly impossible, like turning around our economy, with or without God’s “help”.
In such a case I would probably take a guess (or hope) and vote for the lesser of two evils, his competence vs his faith.
But then again, who can really believe ANY politician in matters of faith, one way or the other. All we can judge, as accurately as we can, is his competence.
So why are we judging or trying to judge someone politically, based upon his religious beliefs, claimed or otherwise. Why not just stick to competence? Has it done he before or if not is what he says he will do sounds reasonable and honest?
Anson
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ August 22, 2011LEAPING into the breech, David,
They almost executed him for his views for starters and it took 360 years to admit their mistake!!! That has something to do with free speech for starters if not free science as well. But the church generally ignores science, at least the Catholic Church today and in my view. Then of course we can talk about birth control as well, today.
Anson
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ August 22, 2011@David,
You said,
Actually, the literature is replete with examples of evolution, even though it usually takes very long periods of time for it to occur. But not always. One example that comes to mind is the rise in recent decades of strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. This is due to the overuse of antibiotics in medicine and the widespread use of them in the meat industry. Some germs survive and propagate. That, David, is evolution in action.
LikeLike
David
/ August 22, 2011That doesn’t mean to say you can reproduce it.
LikeLike
Jane Reaction
/ August 22, 2011Actually, David, it reproduces itself.
LikeLike
David
/ August 22, 2011no, it doesn’t. You look at two pieces and connect the dots.
Look, I believe evolution to be true. But it’s something that will never be a law like the Laws of Thermodynamics. It’s probably true to some degree or another, but it cannot be proven with the normal standards of proof that science requires.
LikeLike
David
/ August 22, 2011They did not “almost execute” him, and they didn’t punish him for his views, which in fact were the views of Copernicus, who was a Catholic priest.
Galileo’s conflicts with accepted authority were first with Aristotelian philosophers in Italian universities. They tried to bring the Catholic church, particularly its police arm, the Roman inquisition, into the battle against Galileo.
High church officials did not initially oppose Galileo’s science. Indeed, one cardinal remarked that the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.
Galileo wrote that his science was “in contradiction to the physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers” and “stirred up against me no small number of professors.” They “hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly.” They had “resolved to fabricate a shield for their fallacies out of the mantle of pretended religion and the authority of the Bible.”
Title page of Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in Florence in February 1632.
Galileo argued that if his scientific “doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scriptures when they were rightly understood.”
He recognized “that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood.” But for “discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations.”
Galileo advised Catholic officials not to take formal action against Copernican theory while new evidence from the telescope was still coming in. He advocated metaphorical rather than literal interpretation of biblical passages in which the sun seemingly moved.
Regarding birth control, bring it on. Theologically, the church’s stance on birth control is solid as a rock.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ August 22, 2011David,
First, in breathtaking fashion, you completely ignored the fact that the Church, through the Inquisition, did punish Galileo (house arrest for life) for suspected “heresy” regarding the heliocentric nature of our “universe.” The Church also required him to recant his heretical opinions.
Additionally, his works were banned, both past and future works.
As an aside, I was touched deeply by Dava Sobel’s book, “Galileo’s Daughter.” The great man and scientist had three children, all illegitimate. The book was about Suor Maria Celeste, who became a nun and lived out her life in utter isolation, but for her wonderful letters to her father and his visits.
In the book (which is based only on her extant letters to Galileo; none of his survived history) we learn that after the pope changed Galileo’s place of imprisonment to Arcetri in Florence, that Galileo datelined his letters:
Not long after Galileo returned home to serve out his sentence, his beloved daughter passed away and as Dava Sobel points out at the end of her book,
Duane
LikeLike
David
/ August 24, 2011That’s right, they punished him with house arrest (hardly like life in prison) for heresy, which is an ‘opinion at variance with religious doctrine. Galileo’s problem was that he tried to mix science and theology. That’s what they punished him for. The fact was he could not prove what he was saying to be true-instrumentation available would not allow it. The truth is that the heliocentric theory was around for a long time before Galileo, and the Church did nothing-nothing-to dispute it. Copernicus was a Catholic priest and scientist who held the theory (hence why it was called ‘Copernican theory’) Galileo himself said this “”There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove that the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun.”
The Church cannot be accused of interfering in what may be considered the proper domain of the physical sciences because Galileo’s crime was only indirectly concerned with the Copernican theory. His heresy was specifically to doubt the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. He was saying that the authors of scripture had erred, and had no proof to show as such. Regarding his works, not true. Pope Urban VIII granted Galileo permission to write Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems as long as he treated both the Sun-centered and the Earth-centered systems as theories. After it was written, the Pope felt that Galileo had defended Copernicus too strongly and Galileo was called to face the Inquisition. Confessing his guilt in order to secure a lighter punishment, Galileo was put under house arrest. As for the daughter, most nuns are buried in their convent grounds.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ August 25, 2011David,
You say you believe the Bible is 100% true and that you believe in what science has presented about evolution of life on earth and the beginning of the universe.
Okay.
But then you say that,
No, what he tried to do was do what you claim to do: Accept the findings of the science and still believe in the truth of scripture. I don’t think you will find any statement he made that would support your claim that he “doubted the inerrancy of scripture.” He was a good Catholic, to the end. Like you seem to have done, he simply determined that a particular interpretation of the Bible was wrong on those points in which science clearly conflicted with it. I’m guessing that’s not much different from your view.
Yet, Galileo was punished very severely—you too easily dismiss the extent of his punishment and seem—I said, seem—to take lightly the idea that a Church can control the life of a person to such an extent. It amazes me, to tell you the truth. You are almost apologetic for the actions of the Church, which were clearly wrong on the science and wrong on the morality of persecuting someone for what the Church considered to be an improper belief system.
Duane
LikeLike
David
/ August 25, 2011Duane,
First, documentation proves that this is exactly why Galileo was punished.
Second, you have to realize that Galileo had a choice. He could have said “I disavow the Catholic Church”, and gone on to live a happy life. Keep in mind that this is post-Protestant reformation, and there were choices. It’s not like if he broke the marijuana laws and got tried and put in jail. Galileo chose to obey the church, a credit to him that many don’t see.
Third, the Church was not wrong on the science, they just wanted proof before they accepted. They wanted Galileo to stick to science and leave religion to theologians. Galileo chose to contravene this, and also chose to accept the Church’s sentence. The fact is, he was not chained, he was not imprisoned in any way. In fact, he could come and go to some degree. And the truth is that he died a devout Catholic.
If he had no choice, I could understand your amazement.
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ August 25, 2011@David, re: your 8/25 11:30am comment,
You believe Galileo had a choice. One conversation about that is burned into my brain – I don’t have to look it up. When told Galileo was resisting the Church’s efforts to quash publishing his findings the Pope said, “Show him the instruments.” Now if you don’t know what he was talking about there, you haven’t read far enough.
LikeLike
David
/ August 25, 2011I wonder what you think that means, Jim? Show him the instruments means to SHOW them to him. Certainly could be menacing him, probably was. That still doesn’t mean he was handcuffed, restrained in any way, and it doesn’t mean he wasn’t free to denounce the church, be excommunicated, and walk away intact.
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ August 25, 2011Oops. I had no sooner typed and sent the words, “I don’t have to look it up.” than a little voice in the back of my head spoke harshly to me. So I looked it up and found I may have been wrong. On the web site biographybase.com I found a good account of the events, among which was:
However, there is ample evidence of how he was brought before a formal interrogation of the Inquisition on April 12, 1633, the result being that Galileo was forced to disavow his published work. It could be that nobody actually showed him the instruments of torture. However, it is likely that Galileo, being a smart guy, should have known of the use of such things. The biographical account does mention that he was ” . . threatened with death at the stake . . . ” There’s an attention-getter for you.
But even if he didn’t, which is inconceivable to me, he would also have known of the Church’s power to excommunicate and banish offenders to eternal torment in Hell, a power which was brandished with regularity, even over the nobility, a power the threat of which required one penitent crawl on his knees from Austria to Rome. And I can give a reference for that one if anyone wants it.
Here is the link to the Biography article:
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/galilei_galileo.html
LikeLike
David
/ August 25, 2011There’s no doubt he was brought before the Inquisition, there’s no doubt he was threatened, and there’s no doubt he was probably told something like “If you keep this up, you’re bound for hell.” I don’t even doubt that he was probably deprived wrongly. Seen through 20/20 hindsight, we can say that. Now. There was no proof of it then (the fact of heliocentrism).
But first off, the Inquisition was a court system. Galileo was being tried for heresy. He was doubting the inerrancy of God’s word, and he had no proof of his theory. Regarding the Inquisition, did you know that many blasphemed publicly because they feared the secular punishment for crimes and preferred the ‘wrath’ of the Catholic Church? And did you know that, at this time, Protestants were burning witches at the stake? Knowing what Protestant Europe was like in this time makes the Church look positively civilized.
Just so you know, the Church does not excommunicate people, they acknowledge that something a person has done has put them out of God’s embrace. They pronounce that they’re excommunicated. But mostly, this means that you have to repent and admit your errors, and the Church will help you come back into God’s beneficience. Your statement about crawling from Austria to Rome is unsubstantiated, so please, give a credible reference.
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ August 25, 2011David,
“A World Lit Only By Fire”, William Manchester, c.r. 1992, Little, Brown & Co. is the source. (Manchester is a renown, best-selling historian. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Manchester )
After a brief search I found a specific excerpt, similar to the one I mentioned, from p.60 of Manchester’s book:
(preceded by other paragraphs on punishments rendered by the Catholic Church) –
“The notorious Count Fulk the Black of Anjou, whose crimes were legendary, finally realized his soul was in peril and, while miserable in the throes of his conscience, begged for devine mercy. . . . He expected a heavy sentence, and that is what he got. He is said to have fainted when it was passed. Shackled he was condemned to a triple Jerusalem pilgrimage: across most of France, Hungary, Bosnia, mountainous Serbia, Bulgaria, Constantinople, and the length of mountainous Anatolia, then down through modern Syria and Jordan to the holy city. In irons, his feet bleeding, he made this round trip three times– 15,300 miles — and the last time he was dragged through the streets on a hurdle while two well-muscled men lashed his naked back with bullwhips.”
LikeLike
David
/ August 26, 2011Regarding Count Fulk, from what I find of him, he had a deliction for severe penance, and inflicted them on himself. Such was the medieval mindset. Most people then, and me personally now, believe it’s better to suffer here on earth than to suffer hell forever later. At any rate, whatever penance he was sentenced to, he could have said no, or refused to do it, and suffered the consequences. Did you know that Irish monks had to be prohibited from inflicting harsh penances on themselves, penances such as sitting in vats of ice water for hours/days just to prove their holiness? The point being that those times are those times, and we may look at them in wonder and horror.
Considering what Our Lord did for us, if the Shroud of Turin, the burial shroud of Christ, and the deaths suffered by all of the martyrs, Christianity does inspire people to go to great lengths to show their love of God. People were also inspired to give up their sexuality for God for the love of Him.
LikeLike
telson7
/ August 26, 2011If we were to mention the biggest reason why people do not believe in God and creation, it is probably the theory of evolution – the issue that became well-known through the deeds of Charles Darwin in the 19th century. His theory is based on the viewpoint that present organisms were not created by God, but that they evolved from simpler forms of life over a long period of time. All present life forms – animals and plants — arose through evolutionary events. Factors such as natural selection and mutations supposedly caused changes in species.
However, it is important to note that the main factor in evolutionist thinking is time: millions and billions of years. It is supposed that the universe and the Earth are billions of years old, and that the old Earth automatically proves the theory of evolution right. This is supposed, even though it has been impossible to prove the spontaneous birth of life, and even though intermediate forms are still missing between the most important groups. One can try to solve the problems appearing in the theory of evolution simply by crediting time for making all things possible: over the course of millions of years, anything can happen.
One can compare this to a fairytale: a girl kisses a frog and the frog suddenly changes into a prince. This is deemed a mere fairy tale. However, the same fairy tale can become fact if allowed enough time, i.e., 300 million years. Some scientists believe that is how long it took for a frog to change into a man. Time makes all things possible, even if they go against practical observations.
In any case, in this section we are going to study the age of the Earth and the universe. Are they on such a firm foundation, after all? Our goal is to clarify whether or not they are as old as supposed. We start the study from the space near us.
http://www.jariiivanainen.net/theageoftheearth.html
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ August 26, 2011I’m not sure, David, what a “deliction” is, but Fulk certainly was not alone in his motivation in those days, which was morbid and abject fear of spending eternity in agony. The Catholic Church, as documented in Manchester’s book and others, took full advantage of such fear to maintain control of people and to profit from their power as well. The selling of indulgences was common practice. Whether you recognize it or not, the Church was wielding real power and enjoying it. I find the whole scene reprehensible.
That you seem to find the thought of giving up sexuality for God admirable is interesting. To me, that’s not significantly different from self-flagellation. So much for rationality.
As you note, times have changed. Europe seems to have shed much of its religiosity and in America most Catholics, based on my reading of the press, are cafeteria Catholics, picking and choosing the parts they want to comply with. There is no question in my mind that there is a major spiritual component to most people’s nature, but it is morphing into something disorganized. I see it as no accident that the Catholic Church’s principal strength today in in the Third World. It might have to do with education and science.
LikeLike
David
/ August 26, 2011The word may be wrong, but you can’t get the context? He desired severe penance. And what is so wrong with fearing eternity away from God’s love? We should all fear that. The characterization that the Church imposed such severe penances is a mischaracterization. They were about as rare as the execution of the death penalty today. But penance for doing wrong is a world-wide thing, it’s not just Catholic. The Church never had any actual power to force anyone to do anything. The Church proposes a way of life that will lead you to heaven. It’s your choice if you want to go to heaven or not.
Giving to God is admirable. Especially considering that everything we have is His, a gift to us. That we regift something so special as our sexuality is doubly admirable.
It’s true that many Catholics in Europe and America are cafeteria Catholics. So what? Same can be said for most Americans being cafeteria American. The reason for much of the Western world’s turn away from religion is their belief that what’s on earth is all-important. It’s not. Too many will find out too late.
Regardless of what you or anyone else think, there is only one Truth, and the path that leads to Truth is narrow. God calls us to a higher calling, most don’t listen and squander their gift. Since we’ve strayed so far from Duane’s topic, I’ll make this my last comment here.
LikeLike