The classic and most recent example is likely to be Evolution, but what other scientific theories had been rejected in the past by some because of religious reasons?
Did anybody try to prevent, say, germ theory, from being taught because they thought sickness was from the devil? Did anybody try to prevent meteorology from being taught because they though God made the weather directly?
The heliocentric solar system?
Actually, the “classic” example is the resistance to a Heliocentric solar system in the 15th/16th centuries by the RCC.
If we’re looking primarily at the RCC, that body is actually ahead of most Americans in that evolution is well accepted. Most Americans* still believe in a special creation for humans-- ie, we did NOT evolve from other life forms but were created as we are by God.
*Different polls show slightly different results, but I think most of them give a slight majority to the “special creation” crowd.
There was resistance to the use of anaesthesia during childbirth because of a Biblical reference to its being a punishment on women for the sins of Eve. I seem to recall that one thing that helped overcome this notion was that Queen Victoria welcomed receiving chloroform during the birth of her children.
One classic example many mention when a subject like this appears, is not a good one:
http://www.medecine.unige.ch/ivbm2000/michelservet.htm
So his prosecution was a religious one, the circulation of blood was not really the issue. In fact, other scientists found evidence elsewere in Europe virtually at the same time, and had very little trouble telling everyone about their discoveries.
I think a distinction can be made: do you mean rejected in the sense of its truthfulness or rejected in the sense of “don’t use or do this!”? For example, I’m pretty sure the RCC knows that birth control works…they just don’t like it. On the otherhand, they didn’t believe the heliocentric model was true at all.
I’m sure you could find more examples of the former everytime a new invention came around: the cameras will steal our souls!; the radio uses demon magic! etc.
there’s one difference between today’s fanatics who reject evolution, and earlier fanatics: all the historical examples given were theories that not only were rejected by religions, the were proven correct by scientists, and had practical applications.
So the religious fanatics had no choice but to accept the truth.
Darwin’s theory is important as a philosophy, to know where we came from.But it has no practical benefits. Compare it to the other big religion/science debate facing us now–stem cells. Religious people will object , but the research will eventually be done,( either in America or elsewhere), and when practical medicines are developed, the debate will fizzle out.
I meant rejected in the sense of truthfulness.
And I can’t believe I didn’t think of helicentrism for the OP :smack:
This is incorrect. A great deal of research in genetics and in the biomedical field in general is guided by insights gained from the fact that different organisms are related by common descent.
No to hijack my own thread here, but can you elaborate a bit on that? This info sounds useful for debating anti-evolutionists.
Way back in pagan Greece, worshipers of the Moon goddess got pissed off when natural philosophers suggested that the phases of the moon were perfectly explainable in terms of viewing a sphere lit from different angles.
Sure, since I’m getting a PhD in exactly this next Monday, I’ll chime in.
A lot of what we know about genetics is due to what we have found out about development from model systems, like the mouse, fruit fly, and even yeast and bacteria. The same systems exist to control certain processes – from cell cycle to DNA repair to development to you name it.
Almost everything we do in genetics depends on model organisms. When interesting genes are identified in any organism – bacteria, yeast, roundworm, fly, mouse, human – there is usually quite a rush to do two things: 1) create mutations of the gene in every model in which it is found and 2) see if it is linked to human disease. I work on a gene important in fly eye development. A mouse with a small eye was found with a mutation in a gene (called Pax6); an eyeless fly mutation discovered in 1915 was then found to be mutant in the fly copy of the gene (called eyeless in the fly). It has since been extensively messed with (cloned, sometimes mutated) in many different organisms – frog, chicken, flatworm, squid, blind cave fishes – and examined for its role in eye development. In the human, it is linked to aniridia (congenital absence of an iris). Pax6 research has taught us a lot about how eye development works. Again, one example out of thousands.
Any drug that you ingest has been tested on animals. Common descent is the reason that this (usually) works. With new drugs, we are more and more focused on genes. The way drug design usually works is to see if a certain compound can bind to a gene product (protein) in a test tube or in cell culture. Then, it is moved to animal models to examine its efficacy and toxicity. Then, it goes into very limited human trials.
They aren’t religions but a few examples. Stalinism led to a rejection of modern genetics (and evolution), and led to famine as incorrect hypotheses were used as a basis for the Soviet agricultural system. Lysenkoism.
Also, the Nazis rejected the theory of relativity and quantum theory because of the Jews involved in the creation of these theories.
I think that if you broaden the OP to political ideologies, you will find a lot more. coughglobalwarmingabstinenceeducationcough.
One I’ve heard of, and I’m a little dubious about.
I Kings 7:23 : " It was round in shape, the diameter from rim to rim being ten cubits; . . . and it took a line thirty cubits long to go round it. "
Well, according to some people, fundamentalists claim that this passage proves that Pi is exactly 3, and reject the notion that it’s 3.14 etc.
see : http://www.randi.org/jr/04-27-2000.html
I’m somewhat dubious of Randi’s claim. I don’t know if any fundamentalist has really ever made an issue of this. Anyone have any cites for the alleged legal attempts in southern states?
Peter, here’s one example.
http://faqs.jmas.co.jp/FAQs/sci-math-faq/indianabill
Are you happy now?
Judging from the wording on the commentary, Peter, these are not Randi’s words, but Mr. Riggins’. Please do not attempt to pillory Randi for the words of Mr. Riggins, nor falsely attribute them to him. Unfortunately, the internet wayback machine is unable to read the page in the link.
But it’s kept up somewhere else.
http://members.aol.com/darrwin/things.htm#pi
I do not know what creationists claim Pi is 3. I do not know of other laws introduced.
I say to you, Mr. Morris, good day.
According to James Burke in The Day the Universe Changed the existence of vacuums were questioned by RCC. The grounds were that vacuums contained nothing, but the Church believed God was everywhere-- therefore vacuums could not exist.
The Master Speaks:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
The short of it is that it didn’t happen exactly that way.
Your links have nothing to do with religious fundamentalists. They are about a man claiming that he had solved an ancient mathematical problem “squaring the circle.” He needed to change the value of Pi to make his solution work. It has nothing whatsoever to do with literal interpretation of any biblical verse.
So, to the O.P. it seems that this** isn’t** a good example of what you want.
Oh, so it’s wrong to hold Randi responsible for the false information he includes on his page? Randi quoted this with approval, without bothering to check the accuracy, and he’s not responsible for that?
Same to you, I’m sure.
Thanks for the info. I was always dubious of the claim, and now I know.
But that is evidential proof that at least one religious sort believes Pi should equal 3, because god said so. Eh.