The Christian Right needs to stay out of science.

[shawnsegler]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/03/31/the-house-of-representatives-committee-on-science-is-turning-into-a-national-embarrassment/

[grzegorz]

Funny rant from the Cosmos thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojkAmuRBnc0

[wiesiek]

been in roman catholic church actually prevents from science totally
but
they have scientist , so I`m confuse
kinda of : papers are endlessly patient or something

[Interloper]

I suspect that there are many successful scientists who are also devoutly religious. They probably manage the two without conflict by creating separate "boxes" in their minds to compartmentalize and contain them, and they keep their focus within a very narrow area of science so that they don't have to deal with data that conflict with their religious beliefs. When they do get exposed to data that conflict with their religion, they can fabricate a rationale that "explains" how it really does fit into their belief system.

[wiesiek]

two boxes sounds neat
like brain left and right half , just lobotomised

[Bill]

The idea that the Catholic Church opposes science could not be more wrong....

In the Church's view, science and faith are complementary to each other and mutually beneficial.

In 1988, Pope John Paul II addressed a letter to the Director of the Vatican Astronomical Observatory, noting, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."

As Nobel Laureate Joseph Murray notes, "Is the Church inimical to science? Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist — I don't see it. One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth. If you really believe that creation is good If the Catholic Church were opposed to science, we would expect to find no or very few Catholic scientists, no sponsorship of scientific research by Catholic institutions, and an explicit distrust of reason in general and scientific reasoning in particular taught in official Catholic teaching. In fact, we find none of these things.

Historically, Catholics are numbered among the most important scientists of all time, including Rene Descartes, who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction; Blaise Pascal, inventor of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities; Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, who founded modern genetics; Louis Pasteur, founder of microbiology and creator of the first vaccine for rabies and anthrax; and cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, who first developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun. Jesuit priests in particular have a long history of scientific achievement; they contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics — all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents.

The scientist credited with proposing in the 1930s what came to be known as the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe was Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest. Alexander Fleming, the inventor of penicillin, shared his faith. More recently, Catholics constitute a good number of Nobel Laureates in Physics, Medicine, and Physiology, including Erwin Schrodinger, John Eccles, and Alexis Carrel. How can the achievements of so many Catholics in science be reconciled with the idea that the Catholic Church opposes scientific knowledge and progress?

One might try to explain such distinguished Catholic scientists as rare individuals who dared to rebel against the institutional Church, which opposes science. However, the Catholic Church as an institution funds, sponsors, and supports scientific research in the Pontifical Academy of Science and in the departments of science found in every Catholic university across the world, including those governed by Roman Catholic bishops, such as The Catholic University of America. This financial and institutional support of science by the Church began at the very birth of science in seventeenth-century Europe and continues today. Even Church buildings themselves were not only used for religious purposes but designed in part to foster scientific knowledge. As Thomas Woods notes:

Cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were designed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to function as world-class solar observatories. Nowhere in the world were there more precise instruments for the study of the sun. Each such cathedral contained holes through which sunlight could enter and time lines (or meridian lines) on the floor. It was by observing the path traced out by the sunlight on these lines that researchers could obtain accurate measurements of time and predict equinoxes. [2]
In the words of J. L. Heilbron of the University of California, Berkeley, the "Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably, all other institutions." [3] This financial and social support extended also to other branches of scientific inquiry., there can be no harm in studying science. The more we learn about creation — the way it emerged — it just adds to the glory of God. Personally, I've never seen a conflict."

[yeniseri]

Perhaps not the US Christian Right but the RIght Christians are the key to a sensible strategy to changing the dialogue!
Survival also seems to be an inherent postulate in assessing abiltiy to plan, mitigate and fund the tools to allow for autonomy in a disaster. No planning means greater loss of life, no initiative to flee when the visual /observational clues are present
and the inability to take action when necessary

[Doc Stier]

Well spoken, Bill. In today's world, however, it is commonplace for those who have had a bad personal experience with Christianity in the past, whether Roman Catholic or otherwise, to bash Christianity in any form without exception, generally judging Christians as ignorant, superstitious and unscientific. Such harsh criticism is ultimately more of a reflection on who they are than a reflection on those whom they so judge, imo.

[Steve James]

There have been many Christian scientists, but there have also been many Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and atheist scientists. What might separate them is their religions, but science unites them in a common language. What worked for Newton, the alchemist Anglican, worked for Galileo the Catholic, Einstein the Jew and Avicenna the Muslim. Jews and Catholics don't have to agree on religion to work in the same laboratory, but they can agree on the same scientific experiment. Of course, all scientists won't agree either. But, I thought the point of Bill's post was to show that the Catholic church (and a Catholic) can and does accept science. Of course, that doesn't mean that all Christians or religious people do.

[middleway]

There have been many Christian scientists, but there have also been many Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and atheist scientists. What might separate them is their religions, but science unites them in a common language. What worked for Newton, the alchemist Anglican, worked for Galileo the Catholic, Einstein the Jew and Avicenna the Muslim. Jews and Catholics don't have to agree on religion to work in the same laboratory, but they can agree on the same scientific experiment. Of course, all scientists won't agree either. But, I thought the point of Bill's post was to show that the Catholic church (and a Catholic) can and does accept science. Of course, that doesn't mean that all Christians or religious people do.

well said.

Without doubt there are certain Christians who are directly opposed to Scientific discovery (young earthers etc). I do find it unfortunate that such groups get more air time than Scientists who just happen to be Christians ... but thats just not a story.

Unfortunately according Gallup a whapping 30% of ADULTS ... not christians ... adults... in the USA say that they interpret the bible literally ... and between 40 - 50% of American Adults believe that the earth is 'young'. There is something about the Christian religion that seems to be inherently opposing scientific rationality for a huge percentage of its followers. Especially for the less educated.

Cheers
Chris

[Michael]

Unfortunately according Gallup a whapping 30% of ADULTS ... not christians ... adults... in the USA say that they interpret the bible literally ... and between 40 - 50% of American Adults believe that the earth is 'young'. There is something about the Christian religion that seems to be inherently opposing scientific rationality for a huge percentage of its followers. Especially for the less educated.

Cheers
Chris

I don't know if this is a Christian trend so much as an American education and cultural trend. Would be interesting to see some stats to compare answers to these and other basic academic questions for groups such as typical Christians who graduated big city public schools, and typical Christians who did home-schooling in those same big cities. I think that would be more meaningful.

[middleway]

That would be a very interesting comparison. I think the figure for post graduate adults is about 25% ... thats still one hell of alot of people who have been so influenced by this Christian Idea that they will reject the mass of scientific data proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years.

[Michael]

I wonder if they believe in qi, too?

[wiesiek]

of course C.C. was avant-gardism once ,
directing light of the science for the masses,
I`m just lookin` from the side, nothing personal, however what we have here is contemporary ultra catholic /s -word/ bip!
better, should never left of the dark ages, eating his own tail .

everybody has the right for their own believes/opinions
but
somehow C.C. /right now in Poland, particularly/ , has the right for THE ONLY truth,
another truth can be nice but :
- 1st.: our is nicer
- 2nd.: we will kill you Antichrist, eventually,
if we didn`t do it yet.

and for clarification: I don`t criticize someone personal "faith principles", but "Church as the Institution of the Earthly Power"

[Steve James]

Religion existed in the "Dark Ages," the "Renaissance," and the "Enlightenment." Some would argue that during these centuries, their religion did not change. That's the difference between "religion" (in general) and "scientific knowledge." In Medieval times, everyone (in Europe, for ex) had a religion, and they killed each over their religious differences. Catholics killed Protestants and those who held different Christian dogma; and Christians burned Jews in their synagogues. Religion wasn't just belief; it was a necessary identity. An atheist could be put to death for saying it out loud. So, it's not that there were religious scientists; there were could only be religious scientists.

The problem came when science (including mathematics) contradicted what the religious authorities were claiming as facts based on their received dogma. What happens when math can explain why there are 24 hours in a day, and that it would take more than 6 to make almost anything on earth, let alone the entire universe. Sure, who knows what an omnipotent God could do in a day, and everyone is free to believe it. Sure, we can say that the story is a metaphor, and that the actual time doesn't matter. But, if it's taught in a class that has to use math, it will either cause confusion or cause a willing suspension of disbelief. Actually, we could also redo the dates in Genesis, and translate a "day" as 2 billion years. Some religions (who consider themselves Christian, btw) believe that angels are extraterrestrials.

People in ancient times or the Middle Ages would never have thought of it in that way. Many scientists argue that extraterrestrial life must exist --just based on the math. If they are religious, there are few who'd argue that we "must" be the only beings that God created in the universe. Does that accord with scripture or dogma? If there are other beings, are we the only ones created in God's image? If there are others, could they have the same knowledge of history? Can they be saved without that knowledge? Do they need salvation at all? All these are necessary questions if we plan space exploration. But, we can't answer them in science class.

What we do if/when we meet other intelligent life will be a question that requires morality. Personally, I wouldn't want to make those decisions based purely on science. It might be scientifically rational to eliminate a threat. Ever notice how, since the old sci-fi flicks, even Star Trek, the explorers are carrying guns Now, what would give us the right to kill something on its own planet ... is a matter of cultural conditioning. Some might then argue that we need more than religion in order to find morality --on planets with other forms of life. Hey, the reason we're scared of aliens is because we know ourselves so well.