Evolution and Theology (An open letter to the creationists)

Great Debates
1

I want to tell you a story, a true story. It is about Galileo. There will be a couple other names in it that you should recognize.

Galileo got into some trouble with the Catholic Church. To understand how, you need some background. I will start with an idea that a guy named Copernicus dreamed up. He looked around the sky at night and observed the somewhat bizarre path the planets and such sketched through the sky over the course of the years. He came up with some simpler ideas to explain these movements by positing that it was easier to explain the movements if you consider that the sun and not the earth was the center of the solar system (universe actually in that early consideration). His evidence was rather weak though, as telescopes hadn’t been invented yet and all he had that was really solid was the apparent movement of the other planets in the night sky. The Church rather got on to him for speaking of this idea in public and effectively put the subject out of bounds for consideration. This idea was plainly contrary to scripture and there was no evidence that really proved it.

Fast forward to quite a few years later. Galileo comes on the scene. As he was a man of learning and science, he was quite familiar with Copernicus’s ideas (and the refinements added by Kepler and others later on). He was quite impressed with these ideas and thought them very clever. As fate would have it, crude telescopes were becoming available then and Galileo was among the first people on Earth to really have a good look at other objects in our solar system. It quickly became clear to him that he could see in the heavens (thanks to this early telescope) everything that was needed to prove that Copernicus’s ideas as correct.

He realized that the Church would still not be very pleased with anyone making these claims and mostly sat on this information for a period of years. Luck, he thought, had brought him some help. A fellow countrymen had been made Pope. A man, in fact, that Galileo knew personally. A man that he considered a friend became the Pope. Galileo knew this Pope respected him, and would make sure his ideas would be fairly evaluated if he revealed them. As it turns out, that is not the way that it happened. The Pope had his hands full already with other problems and was rather upset with Galileo for the way he published his findings. So, the Pope didn’t take the effort to help or defend his friend. (All of this is a fascinating story with politics, intrigue and vendettas, but is too long to tell now.) Galileo was brought before the Church and found substantially guilty of heresy and forced to recant on bent knee. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His book and his ideas were banned for the next 200 years. They didn’t go away.

It is obvious today that the Church erred in the handling of Galileo’s revelations. Even the Vatican finally got around to officially apologizing for this chapter in its history in 1992. Anyone with even modest means can purchase a telescope that far exceeded the capabilities of anything available to Galileo in his day. Today, anyone can see the truth of what Galileo had to say, for himself, if he cares to. Galileo brought clear evidence of what the truth was before the Church only to have it rejected and suppressed as being contrary to Scripture, therefore incorrect regardless of evidence. Further discoveries, better education, and advancing technology make denying a Sun-centered solar system a clear mark of insanity.

The same story is happening today. Evolution is that story. When Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, he didn’t have the really strong evidence, either. But, his young idea fit the facts that he did have, so well, that it was more than promising. It also pointed the way to, and predicted, new information to come.

Since Darwin’s first ideas, a tremendous lot has been discovered. Very clear smoking guns have been uncovered all around the planet. The evidence is very strong but understanding all of it requires a bit more learning and thought than is common today (unfortunately). So, the story repeats itself. The only difference really is that the Church is not the monolithic (or powerful) entity that it was then, and that the ideas are being suppressed by a thousand tiny cuts instead of one large victory as it was in the past. But still, the evidence has been found and presented. And again, the truth is being rejected by people who don’t truly open their eyes to look at it. Why should they look at it when it is clearly contrary to their understanding of the scripture? Their understanding couldn’t possible be wrong (again).

Education and technology are improving every year. The evidence becomes easier to grasp for every man every day that passes. The day won’t be long coming when it will be clear to everyone that truth is being rejected today.

The people of today will be looked upon with ridicule by those of the future in the same manner that we look upon the leaders of the Church in Galileo’s time. Open those eyes, and really look at the evidence before rejecting it this time. Do you really want to go down on the wrong side of history again?

For the record, a Sun-centered solar system is still “only a theory.”

2

The atom is only a theory too. So is gravity. I think that’s part of the problem with creationists . They misunderstand the term “theory.”

IIRC, the pope decided a few years ago that evolution was at least not contrary to Catholic theology.

3

If I may nitpick a bit, Darwin didn’t come up with the theory of evolution, he came up with the theory of evolution via natural selection. Subtle difference, but realize that Darwin’s theory built upon, and essentially reversed the evolutionary mechanisms of, those of Lamarck, among others.

Darwin also took great pains to gather a great deal of evidence for his theory. The bulk of The Origin of Species was the presentation of evidence to support his theory, rather than a theoretical treatise in itself (as most evolutionary works prior to Darwin had been). Afterward, he wrote several more books, each filled with page after page of evidence for evolution by natural selection in various organisms.

Since then, even more evidence has come to light, as you noted.

4

Well, that’s not entirely true. Copernicus (who was a clergyman himself, btw) had the enthusiastic backing of both the Archbishop of Capua and the Bishop of Culm, and Copernican ideas were presented to and fairly well received by Clement VII. Also, some of the strongest proponents of the heliocentric theory were the Jesuits at the Vatican Observatory.

His book did show up on the Index between 1615-1758, but that was after the Gallileo controversy.The primary objection to Copernicus’s theory, although there was a religious one, was that it didn’t really explain retrograde motion better than the geocentric onem which would be corrected by Kepler.

5

First of all, you can see an amazing turnaround from Galileo to evolution as early as 1909, evidenced by this entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

So, personally, I consider the RCC to have exonerated itself of the Galileo incident and abandoned the sort of attitude it took at that time. That it did this in 1909 is even more amazing. Those responsible for anti-evolutionism at present must therefore be Protestant Evangelicals. I know you mentioned this obliquely, but it’s worth emphasis.

Secondly, don’t say “only a theory” with scorn. By the way the scientific method works, almost everything is “only a theory.” Theories are adopted to common usage because they tend to accurately predict results over a long period of time. Galileo’s theory accurately predicted the motion of planets (with a few deviances explained by his ignorance of the existence of Neptune and Pluto/Charon) over many years, and so became the accepted theory, but it is still a theory.

There were geocentric models that utilized series of circular orbits, with centers on other orbits, and centers on those orbits, and so on to form a complex scheme of interlocking circles. That theory would predict planetary movements, but it was eventually shown to be an imperfect projection, thus the theory became obsolete. The same thing happened to Newton’s predictions when Einstein came along. Everything’s a theory, but that’s not a mark of weakness.

6

Hoo-boy.

Let’s start with:

  1. What was the Index? (note: I let you speak first)

  2. When was it abolished? 1960-something? Real progressive move. :rolleyes:

  3. Do you really think a book got on the Index because the Vatican quibbled over retrograde motion?

p.s. - Kepler died in 1630 - if his work explained the retrograde motion problem, why was Copernicus’ book on the list until 1758?

(and it warms the old cockles to hear that the Jesuits were backing a Heretic :slight_smile: )

7

It’s fair to say that the Catholic Church learned its lesson from the encounter with Galileo. Having, for completely the wrong reasons, adopted a stance which was, in factual terms, completely wrong, lasting damage was done. Although the official correction regarding Galileo came only recently, the lesson had been learnt well before 1909. So far as this thread goes, the Evolution of Species was published in 1859, and the creationism –v- evolution debate got going immediately. The Catholic Church never became involved, and never condemned the theory of evolution (although it rejected, and still rejects, any attempt to argue that evolution disproves the existence of God).

It’s somewhat ironic that Galileo was condemned by the Catholic Church and received support from Protestants, and the whole Galileo episode was frequently (and rightly) used by Protestants to attack either an anti-intellectual culture in Catholicism or the abuse of power within Catholicism, while strict creationism nowadays is an exclusively Protestant phenomenon. (Although, of course, the great majority of Protestants are not strict creationists.)

This is relevant because it shows, I think, that modern creationism does not come from quite the same stance as the opposition to Galileo. Modern creationism stems from a particular view of biblical literalism and inerrancy which was never held by in Catholic church (or by any Christians until modern times), whereas opposition to Galileo had to do with views about the nature of scriptural authority. (In grossly oversimplified summary, Galileo was always free to put forward hypotheses about the structure of the universe, and to set out evidence supporting them – what he must not do was to dismiss rival hypotheses which were founded on scripture in a way which suggested that he was dismissing, or even ridiculing, the authority of scripture.) Hence showing that the Catholic Church was wrong about Galileo does not, regrettably, establish to the strict creationist that he is wrong about evolution.

8

Actually, the Church was interested and fascinated with Copernicus’s work, but told him to specifically to keep it under his hat until the evidence was better. He didn’t and that was when he got into trouble. That was 1615 or 1616.

The Galileo contraversy was around 1630.

I thought that it was obvious that in my usage I was making the same point to Creationists who make that claim about evolution.
Anyway, obviously the wrong people are reading this post (or responding to it anyway).

The whole point of the post was not to teach science history, but to illustrate the parellels between the acceptance of two emerging ideas at different times in history.

Appearently, it was too long and people lost interest before finishing it or I didn’t write it well enough to keep people in it. I was very proud of it last night.

For the rest of the nitpicks, I was aware of most (if not all) of the info as well, but the details were not important to the central message and it was getting long already. I was just trying to use a little history to maybe get some of the creationists to take a better look at the evidence with an open mind.

9

Looks like you are preaching to the choir here mate.

About all I can add is my recollection of comments SJ Gould made responding to questions following a talk. I apologize for my paraphrasing, but I recall him saying that people often overstate the Roman Catholic church’s position as opposition to evolution - and much of science.

I believed the majority of hardcore young earth creationists were of protestant denominations, rather than RC.

I believe Gould advocated, instead, nonoverlapping magisteria.

10

Well, it looks like it is certainly the choir who is will to respond to this anyway.

And, I should have been more clear that it isn’t specifically the RC that is responsible this time… but the stories are strikingly parallel.

11

will = willing

Carry on.

12

This is a good article, 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense from Scientific American.

13

Hey, let’s make fun of flat-earthers next… there don’t seem to be any of them around either.

14

I was just thinking along the same train of thought in my car the other day : Galileo and the Catholic Church = Darwin and Fundies.

You did a good job at laying it all out, scotth.

15

This has turned into much of a debate though. Might as well put it in MPSIMS.

16

I’d like some clarification from the believers in creation. Some questions, if you don’t mind.

  1. Do you believe that your God could create a universe that took billions of years to develop and life forms that developed through a process of evolution? (Remember the word could)

  2. How old do you believe the world is?

  3. Why, if the world is only several thousand years old, does it appear, according to all methods of measurement, to be several billion years old?

Once those have been answered there will be follow up questions.

Thank you.

17

Dinsdale & Apos are right- hard to have a dog fight when only one dog shows up. Seems to be more like “bash the Church” than a “Great debate”. Were you really thinking that here on the SDMB that there would be dudes debating this with you?

There are still some dudes that think the Earth is hollow & there is a civilization there- let us bash them next. Apos- you can start a thread “debating” flat earth.

18

Oh, and some of the greatest scientists some 100 years ago beleived in phlogiston. Idiots. Issac Newton worked heavily in the occult. What a moron! Many great early astronomers did astrology. Obviously they had small minds. Einstein could not accept several of the most modern generally theories. Clearly overated.

Sure- the Church was really wrong about Galileo- and also about Evolution. Burn them at the stake- right? But even the greatest minds of that time were also glaringly wrong about things modern science currently is sure of. And you know- 100 years from now- most of our current great theoretical physicists are going to be shown wrong too, I’ll bet.

19

DrDeth,

Both of these cases are about adequate, compelling, and honestly gathered evidence being available and rejected as lies because it is imcompatible with what is believed on faith.

Faith is believing something with evidence. Faith is not (supposed to be) believing something in spite of the evidence. There is little that is more sad to me than the truth rejected as a lit.

On your Einstein comment, I feel sure you are referring to quantum mechanics and I also feel sure you don’t really know the whole story. Feel free to elaborate on this story if you wish, but I am sure it won’t really support your point when you really investigate it.

If history is any indicator, you would lose that bet. Copurnicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, and others were all essentially correct. Their idea have not been thrown in the trash but have been expanded and refined. Could they be convicted of not coming up with complete solution? Sure, but they have all contributed steady steps in the right direction.

Regardless of everything said, I wouldn’t care what any of the creationist believed if they would keep their agenda out of the science education standards all across the country. At this point, their backward practices and denial of factual evidence sitting right in front of them becomes a big problem for me.

20

complete solution = incomplete solution.

I have been doing that alot lately.