Ronald Numbers on science, religion, Galileo, and creationism
by KrauzeMy fellow Telician Mike Gene alerted me to this short interview with historian of science, Ronald Numbers. Most ID critics tend to dislike historians of science, because they know that history is far too complex and nuanced to be put into the "heroic scientists vs. evil religionists" stereotypes that some critics are fond of pushing. For example, here's Numbers on Galileo:
Contrary to common myth, Galileo suffered very little abuse at the hands of the Catholic Church. He was never tortured, he never faced death. In fact, he was never imprisoned. His penalty was house arrest at a pleasant villa on the outskirts of Florence, Italy.
Galileo's problems with the church stemmed far less from his astronomical and physical views than from his lack of diplomacy, and from his impertinence in trying to instruct the church on how to interpret Scriptures, as some Protestants had attempted to do in the previous century. Furthermore, in writing his controversial book, Galileo had the impertinence to attribute the Pope's views to a simple-minded character named Simplicius. This Pope [Urban VIII] had once been a patron of Galileo's and had supported his scientific efforts, so such a lack of diplomacy turned even the Pope against his one-time friend.
Numbers doesn't appear to have much brief for the "anti-science" label. Speaking of creationists, he writes: "If you read their literature, you'll rarely come across an anti-scientific notion. They love science. They love what science can do. They hate the fact that science has been hijacked by agnostics and atheists to offer such speculative theories as organic evolution. So, they don't see themselves as being antagonistic to science any more than many of the advocates of evolution - those who see evolution as God's method of creation - view themselves as hostile to Christianity."
In my next post, I'll be looking at the response to Numbers from a prominent ID critic. Keep your eyes peeled!
June 25th, 2006 at 9:56 am
My eyes are peeled. Actually, I think this is giving me a selective advantage. Look for peeled eyes, coming soon to a population near you!
But I thought that Galileo was all part of that nasty inquisition thingy. Is there any evidence that "the inquisition" had anything to do with the handling and treatment of Galileo? Surely he was tortured into confessing that he was contradicting Scripture, and this set science back centuries, if not millennia by discouraging scientists from testing their observations against nature rather than Scripture.
Comment by Mung — June 25, 2006 @ 9:56 am
June 25th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Ronald Numbers has provided a very thoughtful interview on the relationship between science and religion. He also makes the following observation:
When the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science coopts science to evangelize for his atheism, this creates the impression that science does equate with atheism. Perhaps this is one reason why Creationism is showing a resurgence in the land of Darwin and Dawkins. Since Dawkins, as the Face of Science, has been spending a huge portion of his time over the last few years aggressively promoting atheism and attacking religion, he may been helping to fertilize the social soil in ways that help creationist seeds to germinate. If you are concerned about the Rise of Creationism, perhaps it's time to realize that atheists like Richard Dawkins are partly to blame.
Comment by MikeGene — June 25, 2006 @ 10:51 am
June 25th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Um, so if a supporter of science makes a boneheaded comment, creationists think that makes it okay to actually be boneheaded?
Too bad that doesn't work when a supporter of science makes a smart comment. Nor does it work when a supporter of science makes an accurate comment.
Perhaps the cause-effect relationship mentioned is overstated.
Comment by edarrell — June 25, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
June 25th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Galileo's conflict was not with the Church as we understand the Church or religion today. His conflict was with the academy, the current education establishment of his time. Higher education was carried out by those who were highly educated which were the clergy in his time. It was much the same in our country up until the mid 19th century. All the Ivy League colleges were Christian founded. Cornell's founding broke that pattern.
Galileo's opponents didn't disagree with him on dogmatic scriptural grounds, but rather on dogmatic scientific beliefs. Everybody knew that the Ptolemaic explanation was correct! How dare he challenge it with elaborations of discredited Copernican ideas!
Galileo's triumph was simply another example of Kuhnian paradigm shift within the academic structure of his time. Both Galileo and the Church/academy were "pro-science" from their respective positions.
Stu Harris
http://www.theidbookstore.com
Comment by Stuart Harris — June 25, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
June 26th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Hi Ed,
"Um, so if a supporter of science makes a boneheaded comment, creationists think that makes it okay to actually be boneheaded?"
I saw nothing in Mike's comment that suggested this.
Comment by Krauze — June 26, 2006 @ 7:27 am
June 26th, 2006 at 9:16 am
For a readable and thorough discussion of the Galileo affair, may I suggest this.
Comment by macht — June 26, 2006 @ 9:16 am
June 26th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Oh, wait. That's in the myth section.
Comment by Mung — June 26, 2006 @ 2:23 pm