DALLAS (Reuters Life!) – The current struggles between religion and science in areas such as evolution and "intelligent design" are thrown into sharp relief in a new book about the Italian astronomer Galileo and his trial by the Roman Inquisition.

Author Dan Hofstadter described the Galileo affair as "the great religion-science clash of 1633 that in some form has persisted into our time."

The focus of the trial was the scientist's embrace of the Copernican view that the Earth revolves around the sun - a view informed by the observations Galileo made with his famous telescope.

Christians had been ordered not to teach or promote the Copernican take on the solar system. It was essentially for this reason that Galileo found himself in hot water with the clerical establishment.

Hofstadter spoke with Reuters about his book "The Earth Moves: Galileo and the Roman Inquisition," and the relevance of this 17th century episode today.

Q: You describe Galileo's trial as the "the great religion-science clash of 1633 that in some form has persisted into our own time." Can you elaborate?

A: "It has persisted into our own time in two ways. First the whole question of what a scientific theory is was raised at that time and it has been raised again by those who support intelligent design. It's essentially the same quarrel.

"The other point is that although Pope John Paul II said in 1992 that it was the error of the theologians of the time to think that, and I'm quoting now, 'our understanding of the world's physical structure was imposed by the literal sense of sacred scripture', the current Pope, Benedict XVI, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger said in March of 1990 that the church was more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and went on to claim strangely that geocentricism, the idea that the Earth is at the center of the solar system, was correct.

"That's a very odd notion to claim nowadays. For that reason , professors at the University of La Sapienza in Rome brought a protest letter in January of 2008 to Benedict XVI and canceled his visit. So this whole issue has blown up again and it's analogous to the controversy over evolution in many ways."

Q: You raised the intelligent design movement, which critics contend is creationism by another name. On this topic, one would be hard pressed to find a fundamentalist Christian in the United States today who does not accept that the Earth revolves around the sun, but many reject out of hand evolution. Why do you think that is the case?

A. "People, of course, accept the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun but many, and not only in the United States but in a great many countries, surprisingly find themselves unable to accept the theory of evolution.

"The similarity here between what happened with the edict in 1616 against Copernicanism and the struggle against the Church of England's rejection of Darwinism in the 1860s, which in some sense persists worldwide to this day, the similarity has to with the failure to understand the notion of a scientific theory, and the inability to understand what it is to perceive nature, to know nature, which was really very understandable in 1616 , But (it) is much harder to understand or sympathize with now , The creationists do not understand the notion of a hypothesis."

Q: How do you think Galileo would react to today's conflicts between religion and science?

A. "I think he would react to (it) in much the same way as he did to the conflict then , Galileo's response was to say that the aim of scripture is not to teach science but to teach salvation."

Source - http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090720/lf_nm_life/us_books_galileo_1

The same religion vs science debate has not changed since the time of Galileo or even since the time of Copernicus. Religionists try to use a holy book to teach scientists science, or try to explain the observable universe better than scientists.

Interesting to see Dan Hofstadter weighing in on this debate. I like some of his books, three of which I have got. But they are very technical and demand a great deal of focus to read. I will certainly be buying this one. Many thanks for letting us know.

so are u saying that since scientists were right and rome was wrong the same assumption could be applied to evolution?, that is really shallow thinking, wht about all those other theories that came up and have been found to be totally wrong? for example, early theories on heredity, preoformation and particulate thories, preformationists believed parents possesd a miniaturised version of a human beign in the reproductive cells, which will then be "cooked" in womans womb and grow, guess wht thousands of scientist including general public accepted this for years!!!, particulate theory says that,paraphrased, every single organ has particles that it distributes to beign to create a whole human beign, they believed this also for years, are they true now?!

until a hypothesis is made a fact, nothing any scientist  says is "right" in a sense.

horse703:

until a theory is made a fact, nothing any scientist says is "right" in a sense.

What is a theory and what is a fact?

thanks chris, didnt realise i used theory, i do that sometimes, what i meant was a hypothesis. a theory can simply mean a hypothesis that has withstood testing,

Chrisbenogor:

What is a theory and what is a fact?

And how does a theory become a fact?

And after you've explained that I would like to know how to change my chalk in to cheese. Thank you in anticipation to your answer.

when a hypothesis becomes a theory it still does not mean it is a fact, as u can see from the earlier theories i gave. a fact in a general defintion is somethimg that is real or the truth.

is your second question rhetorical?

horse703:

so are u saying that since scientists were right and rome was wrong the same assumption could be applied to evolution?, that is really shallow thinking, wht about all those other theories that came up and have been found to be totally wrong? for example, early theories on heredity, preoformation and particulate thories, preformationists believed parents possesd a miniaturised version of a human beign in the reproductive cells, which will then be "cooked" in womans womb and grow, guess wht thousands of scientist including general public accepted this for years!!!, particulate theory says that,paraphrased, every single organ has particles that it distributes to beign to create a whole human beign, they believed this also for years, are they true now?!

You are right that many scientific theories from the past have been rejected in the light of new and better evidence. This is exactly what science demands. However, there is ONE BIG requirement, namely;

Scientific theories can only be accepted and rejected on a scientific evaluation of the evidence for/against it. Not on religious or superstitious or revelatory evidence.



Why was there opposition to the heliocentrism in the 17th century? Was the opposition motivated by scientific or religious ends?


BTW, do you know the different between the following:

1) Hypothesis
2) Fact
3) Theory

as use in the scientific sense?

i have already given an answer to those three questions, enlighten me if im wrong.

if u do believe that science cannot be explained on "religious or superstitious or revelatory evidence" why cant u believe that the opposite applies. Atheists on nairaland keep asking for scientific evidence on christianity and base disbelieve in God on that.

horse703:

so are u saying that since scientists were right and rome was wrong the same assumption could be applied to evolution?, that is really shallow thinking, wht about all those other theories that came up and have been found to be totally wrong? for example, early theories on heredity, preoformation and particulate thories, preformationists believed parents possesd a miniaturised version of a human beign in the reproductive cells, which will then be "cooked" in womans womb and grow, guess wht thousands of scientist including general public accepted this for years!!!, particulate theory says that,paraphrased, every single organ has particles that it distributes to beign to create a whole human beign, they believed this also for years, are they true now?!

It is a pity most people do not understand the difference between an hypothesis and a theory which is the first thing we were taught back then, when we were introduced to science in form 3.

An  hypothesis is usually a speculation used to describe a phenomenon or an data of observed phenomenon. Meanwhile a theory is a testable and verifiable explanation of the said observation,  for the conditions of the experiments, by any other person especially peers of the person proposing the theory.

So I do not ever remember preformation of genes ever making it to a theory. To be honest with you i had never heard of it until now, so thank you for a bit of education, i will look it up. Also can you tell me how long the theory of "preformation" lasted and who disputed it? was it scientists or was it theologians. Also who proposed the alternative theory?

Yes,  I an  saying that since scientists were right and rome was wrong the same assumption could be applied to evolution. The assumption is right because more than 200 years after Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, it is still the most widely accepted (by scientists) explanation of the formation and diversification of species on earth. The alternative "theory" (creationism) can at best be described as an hypothesis proposed by either ancient Sumerians or Mesopotamians,  that is still awaiting proof (any proof).

The theory of evolution has been proven again and again,  by paleontology,  by genome research, by genetic engineering, even by cloning research and a host of others. The only people disputing evolution are religionists, based on their faith or based on an exaggeration of a few disputed areas. The dispute between heliocentriciy and geocentricity was much more fierce than between creation and evolution. Many heliocentrists lost their lives or liberty in the dispute.

i do not believe evolution has been proven by any of those fields u have mentioned, if so just give me a summary of how these prove evolution.

horse703:

i have already given an answer to those three questions, enlighten me if im wrong.

if u do believe that science cannot be explained on "religious or superstitious or revelatory evidence" why cant u believe that the opposite applies. Atheists on nairaland keep asking for scientific evidence on christianity and base disbelieve in God on that.

The above  is not what I said.   This is what I said:

Scientific theories can only be accepted and rejected on a scientific evaluation of the evidence for/against it.  Not on religious or superstitious or revelatory evidence.



Basically, you cannot accept or reject a scientific theory using any other means of assessment but science.  So if the scientific theory contradicts your cherished beliefs, you cannot reject the theory based on those beliefs.  You must evaluate the theory using scientific means and accepted or reject it accordingly.

The scientific method cannot be used to accept or reject religions, myths or superstitions per se.  However, if these religions, myths or superstitions make factual claims that are realisable in the material world or material sense, then science could be used to examine such claims.  Note the diference - science is used to examine the factual claims of religions.

Now, most religions are built on one or many of such claims.  What if science finds that all or most of the factual claims of a religions are specious?  Would that religion have a foundation to sit on?

It is a wonder that today in the 21st century such issues as listed below are still subject to arguments.
1. Age of the Universe
2. Age of the Earth
3. Age of geological formation of rocks, oil, coal, etc.
4. Age and existence of Dinosaurs.
5. Ice Ages in the past.
6. Evolution of species, with new species forming and some old species becoming extinct. There are still undiscovered species in the depth of the oceans and some people claim adam named all species and all animals and plants.

horse703:

i do not believe evolution has been proven by any of those fields u have mentioned, if so just give me a summary of how these prove evolution.

No body is asking you to believe anything. I want to to KNOW, seek knowledge and it shall be given unto you. When you look for information and you disagree with the said information, propound reasons for your disagreements, seek for more info if you do not understand, after all it takes sometimes up to 7 years of intensive study to understand medicine and the functioning of the human body.

horse703:

i do not believe evolution has been proven by any of those fields u have mentioned, if so just give me a summary of how these prove evolution.

Science is not in the business of providing proofs of claims. Science is in the business of testing hypothesis and providing and marshalling evidence for against claims or hypothesis. As per evolution, the fact that could stand as evidence for evolutions is:

1) The observed gradation in complexity of lifeforms from relatively simple life billions of years ago to more complex/advanced life in the present.

Now, how do you explain that? How do you explain the fact that remains (fossils) of mammals and birds are never found in rocks 500 million years old?

is debating on your thread not a part of info seeking

Paleontology helps prove evolution by providing an inverse relationship between complexity of organism (as represented by their fossils) and their age ( the time of their appearance in sedimentary rocks).  Meaning the older an organism is the  less complex it will be. The most complex organism are like mammals are rarely found in fossils more than a  50 million years. In fact no homo (man)fossil is found in sediments more than 2 million years old and homo sapiens (thinking man) appeared about 200,000 years ago.

Any questions?

wirinet:

Yes,  I an  saying that since scientists were right and rome was wrong the same assumption could be applied to evolution. The assumption is right because more than 200 years after Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, it is still the most widely accepted (by scientists) explanation of the formation and diversification of species on earth. The alternative "theory" (creationism) can at best be described as an hypothesis proposed by either ancient Sumerians or Mesopotamians,  that is still awaiting proof (any proof).

This again is false . . . that something is "universally accepted" does not make it necessarily a fact. I'm sure you know that . . . if not why is evolution still regarded as a theory today?

Majority of christians also assume that creationism is true . . . doesnt that make it a fact going by your false analogy on evolution?

You claim to still be waiting for proof for creationism . . . as if you have any proof for evolution. Hypocrite.