Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
#21
Galileo was a good theologian and a bad scientist. He could not prove the veracity of his theory, but he wanted to teach it as a scientific fact. The fact that he was right from the start means only that he was right, but that his insistence on having his theory considered fact at the time was wrong.

He was a good theologian in that he said that if fact contradicted what seemed to be the sense of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture had to be revised. He was right here, and JPII admitted it.

No amount of monkeys will ever make a human being, nor will any missing links. The theory of evolution can be considered compatible with Genesis if it is an attempt to explain the physical nature of man.

The problem with Intelligent Design is the same as that of the theory of evolution. If it is meant to be scientific truth, it fails. Evolution can never be scientifically proven because, unless we figure out how to time travel, we will never be able to conduct a controlled experiment  on things occurring zillions of years ago. The Catholic Church does not need Intelligent Design, because we already have a much better explanation for the existence of a Prime Mover by Aristotle. No scientific theory can account for the existence of matter. And all scientific methodologies worthy of the name require a cause for each effect. The Big Bang theory is a good reminder for all this, because it does not explain the origin of the matter that exploded. This origin we call God. 

Only Protestants believe in taking Scripture merely literally. Such an attitude never was and never will be Catholic. It is not even sane. I do agree, however, that we also do not need to suck up to Darwin for anything. He has a theory. In some cases, it may be compatible; in others, it cannot. Period.
Reply
#22
If that's the case, you might as well add this guy to your "over-rated" scientists list as well........

[Image: 050405_einstein_tongue.widec.jpg]
Reply
#23
Quote:
He was a good theologian in that he said that if fact contradicted what seemed to be the sense of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture had to be revised. He was right here, and JPII admitted it.
No he was no theologian at all and that's why he was originally suspected of heresy. He was saying that if the Bible contradicted science than we couldn't take it literally, declaring that the Bible was just stories or metaphors. Most dangerous indeed.

Galileo had no reason to believe his theories were right. He just got lucky.
Reply
#24
didishroom Wrote:
Quote:
He was a good theologian in that he said that if fact contradicted what seemed to be the sense of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture had to be revised. He was right here, and JPII admitted it.
No he was no theologian at all and that's why he was originally suspected of heresy. He was saying that if the Bible contradicted science than we couldn't take it literally, declaring that the Bible was just stories or metaphors. Most dangerous indeed.

Galileo had no reason to believe his theories were right. He just got lucky.

As I showed above, Galileo had no reasons to believe, and he was shown to be wrong, but most of all, he had the work of Kepler which he rejected and Kepler was right.
Reply
#25
didishroom Wrote:
Quote:
He was a good theologian in that he said that if fact contradicted what seemed to be the sense of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture had to be revised. He was right here, and JPII admitted it.
No he was no theologian at all and that's he was originally suspected of heresy. He was saying that if the Bible contradicted science than we couldn't take it literally, declaring that the Bible was just stories or metaphors. Most dangerous indeed.
What he said was, you have to take scripture at face value within the context of where it was written. There is a difference between literal truth and metaphor.
 
Reply
#26
alaric Wrote:If that's the case, you might as well add this guy to your "over-rated" scientists list as well........

I said "most". Also, he actually deserves his fame for his great achievements (even when he was wrong...which was relatively rare) and his ability to write in a way the average person could appreciate. One would think that a book on relativity would be above most people's heads, and if there were one, the last person you'd want to write it would be Einstein, but in fact, his books for the average person are the easiest to read and understand.
Reply
#27
LaRoza Wrote:
alaric Wrote:If that's the case, you might as well add this guy to your "over-rated" scientists list as well........

I said "most". Also, he actually deserves his fame for his great achievements (even when he was wrong...which was relatively rare) and his ability to write in a way the average person could appreciate. One would think that a book on relativity would be above most people's heads, and if there were one, the last person you'd want to write it would be Einstein, but in fact, his books for the average person are the easiest to read and understand.
Maybe that last sentence of yours  alone reinforces the notion of his "over-ratedness".
How can the average imbecile understand what a genius has written down?
Reply
#28
alaric Wrote:Maybe that last sentence of yours  alone reinforces the notion of his "over-ratedness".
How can the average imbecile understand what a genius has written down?

Because Truth is beautiful and ultimately simple but it takes a great mind to discover it, and a greater mind to express it simply.

Logic is for everyone or do you think the scientists in their high towers should dictate to the masses what to believe without every proving it because the average person would not understand?

Reply
#29
LaRoza Wrote:
alaric Wrote:Maybe that last sentence of yours  alone reinforces the notion of his "over-ratedness".
How can the average imbecile understand what a genius has written down?

Because Truth is beautiful and ultimately simple but it takes a great mind to discover it, and a greater mind to express it simply.

Logic is for everyone or do you think the scientists in their high towers should dictate to the masses what to believe without every proving it because the average person would not understand?
Not to be heretical here, but, isn't that the same explanation of the Trinity by the Church? The so-called mystery?

I think the whole position of scientists in regards to the Church is indeed logic and not some esoteric ideas based on faith and mysticism.
Reply
#30
alaric Wrote:
LaRoza Wrote:
alaric Wrote:Maybe that last sentence of yours  alone reinforces the notion of his "over-ratedness".
How can the average imbecile understand what a genius has written down?

Because Truth is beautiful and ultimately simple but it takes a great mind to discover it, and a greater mind to express it simply.

Logic is for everyone or do you think the scientists in their high towers should dictate to the masses what to believe without every proving it because the average person would not understand?
Not to be heretical here, but, isn't that the same explanation of the Trinity by the Church? The so-called mystery?

I think the whole position of scientists in regards to the Church is indeed logic and not some esoteric ideas based on faith and mysticism.

Yes, it is. That was my point. scientists are not on the level of the Church and should never be taken on Faith.

Read the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part 1, Article I.

That is the point. Kepler was able to show evidence and logic for his conclusion. Einstein's theory was not easy to formulate, but it is easy to explain for those who truly understand it. Galileo could neither prove his conclusion nor show evidence for it. All evidence was taken on the faith he had in his conclusion.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)