# Will Darwin be this century's Galileo? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2001, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365 "2001-02-21T18:17:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/21 "2001-02-23T02:16:40Z")
> [@](#): > > _from the link_ > **His position gave the Church authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or they had to condemn it.** I was not using the link to justify everything, merely the part about Galileo not proving his theory before trying to spread it. Nor was I saying that the Church was right in what it did…I was just stating that a lot of folks believe that Galileo had absolute proof of his assertions and the Church went in and beat him down, whereas, in reality, the whole thing was a bit more complicated. > [@](#): > > **To respond to the main thrust of the page: I don’t care if Galileo was rude. I don’t care if he was rude to the Pope. What matters is the strength of his science.** Are you sure you read the page, **JDeMobray**? The entire thing is about how the strength of Galileo’s science wasn’t that strong when it comes down to the heliocentric theory. ---
**Author:** ![berdollos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@berdollos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/berdollos)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/22 "2001-02-23T02:21:00Z")
“God is dead,” Darwin Darwin is dead," God ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/23 "2001-02-23T02:21:49Z")
MEBuckner wrote: > [@](#): > > there’s a group of Christians out there who steadfastly continue to have faith in just about [_anything_](http://www.biblicalastronomer.org/). Funny how he concocts unbelievably convoluted explanations for geostationary satellites and the Earth’s equatorial bulge, and never once mentions the existence of stellar parallax… ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/24 "2001-02-23T04:08:34Z")
I _did_ mention in the OP that “I did find a bunch of Catholic appologetica saying that the whole problem is anti-Ctholic propaganda,” so don’t say I didn’t warn you guys. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by berdollos \* > > **"God is dead," Darwin** Actually, the theories that Darwin brought up had nothing to do with God either way. His claims and subsequent theories say nothing about God being dead or otherwise. I’m sure you just used this as a set-up of a joke (which is much better when used with Nietzsche, who actually _did_ say the quote), but since so many Fundamentalist Christians seem to think that Darwin is a threat to their beliefs, we can’t have you furthering this misinformation lest someone take you seriously. Hence this disclaimer. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/25 "2001-02-23T04:15:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, the theories that Darwin brought up had nothing to do with God either way. His claims and subsequent theories say nothing about God being dead or otherwise. > > I’m sure you just used this as a set-up of a joke (which is much better when used with Nietzsche, who actually _did_ say the quote), but since so many Fundamentalist Christians seem to think that Darwin is a threat to their beliefs, we can’t have you furthering this misinformation lest someone take you seriously. Hence this disclaimer. Dang it, **Satan** , you beat me to it. And **tracer**? Nice Chick tract. Hadn’t seen that one yet. I like how they nicely sanitize the fact the the Anglican (not the Puritan) church was formed so Henry VIII (the “defender of the faith”) could get a divorce, which Rome only turned down b/c Charles V, a secular authority, didn’t want Henry to divorce his aunt. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/26 "2001-02-23T06:39:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JDeMobray \* > \*\* > To respond to the main thrust of the page: I don’t care if Galileo was rude. I don’t care if he was rude to the Pope. What matters is the strength of his science. > \*\* Except Galileo didn’t get in trouble because of his science. Other Catholics, like Copernicus and a bunch of Jesuit astronomers were heleocentrists, and they were able to publish and debate freely. Galileo got in trouble because he was rude, because in one of his dialogues, he made a figure that everyone thought was the pope look like a fool, because he refused to debate some promenent geocentrists, and because he said that, by proving the heliocentric theory, he had proven the bible to be not divinely inspired. In a Europe that was in political and religious turmoil because of the Protestant reformation, the church authorities weren’t in the mood to tolerate someone they saw as deliberately provocative and heretical in his religious views. ---
**Author:** ![Phobos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Phobos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phobos)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/27 "2001-02-23T13:28:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Satan \* > \*\*In any event, it seems obvious to me that at least some, if not a vast majority, of Christians at the time seemed to think that the Bible spoke of Earth being at the center of the universe. > \*\* Is there actually anything in the Bible (or any religious scripture) that actually says “Man (or the Earth) is at the center of the universe”? It seems like pure interpretation & hubris to me. (If you know of any, I’d be interested in seeing any quotes from the Bible, etc. that actually say something to that extent.) When the astronomical evidence came in, then it was just a matter of re-interpretation. Therefore, holy text remains “true” in the eyes of the believers. The same may be possible for evolution. Sure, there is the “God created Man” thing, but even the RCC already reinterpreted that to mean “guided evolution”. ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/28 "2001-02-23T16:53:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Phobos \* > > \*\*Is there actually anything in the Bible (or any religious scripture) that actually says “Man (or the Earth) is at the center of the universe”? It seems like pure interpretation & hubris to me. (If you know of any, I’d be interested in seeing any quotes from the Bible, etc. that actually say something to that extent.) \*\* Well, _everything_ from the Bible (or almost any decent literature for that matter) is “pure interpretation.” That interpretation can be found at [WHY GEOCENTRICITY?](http://www.biblicalastronomer.org/geocentricity/whygeo.htm) by our friend the Clevland-based Biblical Astronomer: > [@](#): > > The second of these two concerns: how the Bible’s authority is weakened by heliocentrism; stems from the firm manner in which the Bible teaches geocentricity. Geocentric verses range from those with only a positional import, such as references to “up” and “down;” through the question of just what the earth was “orbiting” the first three days while it awaited the creation of the sun; to overt references such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5: > > > [@](#): > > > > The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. > > Perhaps the strongest geocentric verse in the Bible is Joshua 10:13: > > > [@](#): > > > > And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. > > Here the Editor of scripture, the Holy Ghost Himself, endorses the daily movement of the sun and moon. After all, God could just as well have written: “And the earth stopped turning, so that the sun seemed to stand still, and the moon seemed to stay … .” That wording would be no more “confusing” to the reader than anything in Job chapters 38 through 41. There are those who would claim that the language used is phenomenological, that it was not meant to convey the truth of the matter. They like to equate Joshua 10:13 with verses like Isaiah 55:12 where the trees are said to “clap their hands.” The problem with that is that everyone since Adam can understand that Isaiah 55:12 is a literary device; but there is not a clue to tell those before Copernicus that Joshua 10:13 is not to be taken literally. > > About the immobility of the earth the Bible seems clear enough. The nineteenth-century mathematician Augustus de Morgan put it quite succinctly when he wrote that those who try to get around the Bible’s wording: > > > [@](#): > > > > … make strange reasons. They undertake _a priori_, to settle Divine intentions. The Holy Spirit did not mean to teach natural philosophy: this they know beforehand; or else they infer it from finding that the earth does move, and the Bible says it does not. Of course, _ignorance apart, every word is truth, or the writer did not mean truth_. But this puts the whole book on its trial: for we never can find out what the writer meant, unless we otherwise find out what is true. Those who like may, of course, declare for an inspiration over which they are to be viceroys; but common sense will either accept the verbal meaning or deny verbal inspiration. [De Morgan, A. 1872. _A Budget of Paradoxes_, second edition; edited by D. E. Smith, 1915, (Chicago & London: The Open Court Publishing Co.), Vol. 1, p. 36. (Emphasis added.)] > > In other words, either God writes what he means and means what he writes, or else he passes off mere appearances as truths and ends up the liar. The ultimate issue is one of final authority: is the final say God’s or man’s? > [@](#): > > \*\*The same may be possible for evolution. Sure, there is the “God created Man” thing, but even the RCC already reinterpreted that to mean “guided evolution”. \*\* I think everyone is aware that the RCC has been able to reconcile evolution with their beliefs. However, there is still a decent sized minority of people who fall into the Creationist camp. When I started this thread, I didn’t think anyone subscribed to the views of this Biblical Astronomer anymore, which is why I was asking if maybe eventually Creationism would vanish. Given the new evidence (and why was I surprised that _someone_ somewhere will believe in anything for almost any reason? You’d have thought I’d have learned by now…), I will amend my OP to ask if the rejection of evolution might one day reach the level of rejection of heliocentrism, which is, even in light of our new evidence, negligible and relegated to a few crackpots. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/29 "2001-02-23T21:29:17Z")
from the United Methodist Book of Discipline > [@](#): > > E) Science and TechnologyÑWe recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world, although we preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues. We recognize technology as a legitimate use of God’s natural world when such use enhances human life and enables all of God’s children to develop their God-given creative potential without violating our ethical convictions about the relationship of humanity to the natural world. > > In acknowledging the important roles of science and technology, however, we also believe that theological understandings of human experience are crucial to a full understanding of the place of humanity in the universe. Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities and seek the kind of participation that will enable humanity to sustain life on earth and, by God’s grace, increase the quality of our common lives together. It is just a matter of time before we quit hearing “I ain’t come from no monkey” As noted before by others, the RCC and as noted here the UM churches have come to realize that science is harmonious with faith. That’s a fairly good chunk of people. Although you do have the Baptists: [http://www.southern-baptist-resources.com/southern\_baptist\_convention/index.html](http://www.southern-baptist-resources.com/southern_baptist_convention/index.html) Why hasn’t natural selection pruned out Bible literalists? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/30 "2001-02-23T22:45:23Z")
**Shaky Jake** provided some good answers to the OP’s basic question, “When did religious opposition to heliocentrism die out?” Here are some amplifying comments from Thomas Kuhn’s _The Copernican Revolution_ (ch. 6, pp. 226–227 in the 1957 ed.): > [@](#): > > […] some men whose first interests were religious, moral, or aesthetic continued to oppose Copernicanism bitterly for a very long time. The attacks were scarcely abated by the middle of the seventeenth century [within fifty years of Galileo’s work]. Many important tracts insisting on a literal interpretation of Scripture and upon the absurdity of the earth’s motion continued to appear during the first decades of the eighteenth century. […] > > By the middle of the seventeenth century it is difficult to find an important astronomer who is not Copernican; by the end of the century it is impossible. Elementary astronomy responded more slowly, but during the closing decades of the century Copernican, Ptolemaic, and Tychonic [i.e., the mixed geo/heliocentric system of Tycho Brahe] astronomy were taught side by side in many prominent Protestant universities, and during the eighteenth century lectures on the last two systems were gradually dropped. Popular cosmology felt the impact of Copernicanism most slowly of all; most of the eighteenth century was required to endow the populace and its teachers with a new common sense and to make the Copernican universe the common property of Western man. Andrew Dickson White’s work of a century ago, _History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom,_ although it is highly biased against religious opponents of new theories and tries its hardest to make them look as bad as possible, does have some interesting factual tidbits, and it’s available in an [online version](http://www.human-nature.com/reason/white/chap3.html). White shared your interest in comparing anti-heliocentric arguments to anti-evolution ones, **Satan** : > [@](#): > > Said Martin Luther: “People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” Melanchthon, mild as he was, was not behind Luther in condemning Copernicus. […] So earnest does this mildest of the Reformers become, that he suggests severe measures to restrain such impious teachings as those of Copernicus. > > […] Turretin, Calvin’s famous successor, even after Kepler and Newton had virtually completed the theory of Copernicus and Galileo, put forth his compendium of theology, in which he proved, from a multitude of scriptural texts, that the heavens, sun, and moon move about the earth, which stands still in the centre. In England we see similar theological efforts, even after they had become evidently futile. Hutchinson’s Moses’s Principia, Dr. Samuel Pike’s Sacred Philosophy, the writings of Horne, Bishop Horsley, and President Forbes contain most earnest attacks upon the ideas of Newton, such attacks being based upon Scripture. […] > > And Protestant peoples were not a whit behind Catholic in following out such teachings. The people of Elbing made themselves merry over a farce in which Copernicus was the main object of ridicule. The people of Nuremberg, a Protestant stronghold, caused a medal to be struck with inscriptions ridiculing the philosopher and his theory. […] > > During generations we find the authorities of these Universities boasting that these godless doctrines were kept away from their students. It is touching to hear such boasts made then, just as it is touching now to hear sundry excellent university authorities boast that they discourage the reading of Mill, Spencer, and Darwin. […] > > Doubtless this has a far-off sound; yet its echo comes very near modern Protestantism in the expulsion of Dr. Woodrow by the Presbyterian authorities in South Carolina; the expulsion of Prof. Winchell by the Methodist Episcopal authorities in Tennessee; the expulsion of Prof. Toy by Baptist authorities in Kentucky; the expulsion of the professors at Beyrout under authority of American Protestant divines—all for holding the doctrines of modern science, and in the last years of the nineteenth century. As for “geocentrism science,” though, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence for “researchers” trying to come up with new, scripturally-orthodox theories that would fit the known facts. Of course, the geocentrists had the old theories available to them for that purpose, and could perfectly well go on teaching Ptolemy and Aristotle if they objected to Kepler and Newton. White does mention one John Hutchinson, a Cambridge professor who wrote in 1724 an anti-Newtonian system of physics called _Moses’ Principia_. (He is kind of cutely memorialized in his home parish of [Spennithorne](http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/NRY/Spennithorne/).) Hmmm, so if we allow that it took about 250 years from the first really coherent formulation of geocentrism in Copernicus’ _De Revolutionibus_ for it to become pretty solid religious orthodoxy by the end of the nineteenth century, then if we consider that the _Origin of Species_ came out in the middle of the nineteenth century…well, according to that timeframe, popular Christian theology should be almost entirely reconciled to evolution by, oh, 2100. All right! Only one more century to go! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/31 "2001-02-24T05:10:05Z")
Bah humbug. Geocentrism doesn’t go **nearly** far enough in its biblical literalism! According to [http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm](http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm), the bible says that the Earth is flat. (That article was written by a biblical Geocentrist.) And I can take it one step further: The bible also says that the Earth is **square!** Or at least quadrilateral. Revelation 7:1 (NIV translation) states, “After this I saw four angels standing at **the four corners of the earth** , holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.” ---
**Author:** ![Arthur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@Arthur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arthur)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/32 "2001-02-24T08:23:43Z")
I scrolled through the posts and took a quick glance around to see if anyone had mentioned the fact that the Pope has already accepted evolution as “more than just a theory”. I didn’t see any such reference so I thought I’d take this time to post a few links: [http://www.calvarysac.org/popedarwin.html](http://www.calvarysac.org/popedarwin.html) [http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-pope-accepts-evolution.htm](http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-pope-accepts-evolution.htm) [http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/darwin.htm](http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/darwin.htm) [http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html](http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html) Seems that if those a Catholics won’t accept evolution in the slightest they would be wandering from their religion. After all, what the Pope says, goes, right? But Johnny boy wasn’t even the first Pope to give credence to the theory of evolution. Fifty years ago Pope Pius XII said almost the same thing. Check it out. a. ---
**Author:** ![jenkinsfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cc9497/32.png) [@jenkinsfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jenkinsfan)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/33 "2001-02-24T23:55:37Z")
Hijack: How did Darwin ‘discover’ evolution? Especially without any of the modern technology… ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2001, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/34 "2001-02-25T01:25:00Z")
How much modern technology do you believe one needs to examine a process? The use of the verb _discover_ regarding Darwin’s proposition as to the process of evolution, while not a “normal” mode of expression, is certainly valid in that his observations allowed him to perceive what had not been perceived before–thus “discovering” them. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2001, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/35 "2001-02-25T01:51:00Z")
Hiya, **j-fan**! There is a very nice [site](http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/) with electronic texts of several of Darwin’s works available; you can find out in his own words how he developed his ideas of evolution. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2001, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365/36 "2001-02-25T02:09:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Hijack: How did Darwin ‘discover’ evolution? Especially without any of the modern technology… Basically through a lot of deep thought combined with a great deal of observation of the natural world. Darwin served as a naturalist on a [five-year, round-the-world voyage](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,117775+2+109642,00.html) ("…exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations"–well, sort of) by the H.M.S. _Beagle_. This voyage made a staggering number of observations and collections of specimens of living things and fossils of extinct forms. Among the most famous fauna observed by Darwin were the finches of the Galapagos, now often known as [Darwin’s finches](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,108621+10+106075,00.html). Darwin was also influenced by the work of other 19th Century scientists and thinkers, especially [Malthus](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,51612+1,00.html) and [Lyell](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,50697+1,00.html)–Malthus instilled in Darwin the idea that “[a]s many more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or conditions of life…”, which is key to Darwin’s conception of [natural selection](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,108619+2+106075,00.html); the findings of Lyell and other geologists that the Earth is vastly more ancient than Europeans had suspected was crucial in allowing for the great expanses of time which are required for evolution to work. Incidentally, evolution was “in the air” at that time–as they say, “when it’s railroad time, someone will build a railroad”. If Darwin hadn’t discovered it, someone else would have; in fact, [Alfred Russel Wallace](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,77951+1,00.html) independently discovered most of the same ideas that Darwin did. Modern technology, as in [radioisotope dating](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/6/0,5716,128006+2+117438,00.html) and the techniques of [molecular biology](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,54574+1,00.html), has of course done much to confirm and extend Darwin’s basic ideas. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-darwin-be-this-centurys-galileo/55365.md?page=1)