Thread: Evolution and Heliocentrism?

Alright, evolution has been compared to heliocentrism, this seems optimistic since today few doubt this view of the solar system. So I was wondering, is acceptance of evolution going at the same rate or not?

The answer depends on the population that you are asking the question about. If you are talking about the scientific community, especially biologists, evolution is universally accepted. On the other hand in the general population there are many who reject evolution for religious reasons, some openly and others covertly.

Well, heliocentrism didn't specifically refute the bible. Religious fanatics are less reluctant to accept new ideas that don't substantially refute foundational elements of their belief system than new ideas that do substantially refute their belief system.


I think evolution scares them in a totally different way. You've really got to do some intresting intellectual acrobatics in order to find a way for God to create life with evolution sitting between Him and the final result.

Originally Posted by kojax

Well, heliocentrism didn't specifically refute the bible. Religious fanatics are less reluctant to accept new ideas that don't substantially refute foundational elements of their belief system than new ideas that do substantially refute their belief system.


I think evolution scares them in a totally different way. You've really got to do some intresting intellectual acrobatics in order to find a way for God to create life with evolution sitting between Him and the final result.

Why was the Catholic church so mad at Galileo? Didn't God make the sun stand still for Joshua at the battle of Jericho?

Originally Posted by mathman

Originally Posted by kojax

Well, heliocentrism didn't specifically refute the bible. Religious fanatics are less reluctant to accept new ideas that don't substantially refute foundational elements of their belief system than new ideas that do substantially refute their belief system.


I think evolution scares them in a totally different way. You've really got to do some intresting intellectual acrobatics in order to find a way for God to create life with evolution sitting between Him and the final result.

Why was the Catholic church so mad at Galileo? Didn't God make the sun stand still for Joshua at the battle of Jericho?

There were more reasons than that though. First of all science was in its infancy, so the very idea of studying it instead of God's word was controversial. Plus I've heard Galileo wasn't the most pleasant man, and the Pope didn't appreciate being made fun of.

The church almost killed Galileo because he took it upon himself to interpret scripture himself. Something typically reserved to bishops and the pope himself. He basically blasphemed. Unfortunately the church saught to suppress everything he said regardless of topic after this.

The Catholics of that day weren't like the Protestants of today. They took whatever the Pope said to be equal with Peter, James, or John saying it. Sure, the Bible itself never says the Earth is the center of the universe, but I'm sure enough Popes had signed off on the idea that it would still give the church a black eye to have to change their mind.

So...... probably one change that heliocentrism may have forced on the christians was that they had to retreat to the Bible as the only source of infallible information.

,..... which may have contributed to the rise of protestantism.

Originally Posted by kojax

So...... probably one change that heliocentrism may have forced on the christians was that they had to retreat to the Bible as the only source of infallible information.

,..... which may have contributed to the rise of protestantism.

Unlikely, there is in fact Biblical verse that does state the Earth stands still, however it was catholic philosophers like Aquinas who argued that the parts of the Bible written in verse or song should not be literally interpreted. Moreover, Copernicus was a catholic clergyman himself. Also, early protestants rejected Copernicus's mathematical proof that the Earth could be rotating and not the center of the universe. The initial support of these theories came from within the Catholic church.

Our local newspaper features A Dear Abby column.
Abby replied to a person's comment by using the word "offspring".
Offspring seems like an "evolutionary" term.
It implies seeing humans as animals.
Coming from the advice column,
I envision her using a term like "children", "daughter", "son".
I think Darwin's theory
is quickly coming into the mainstream consciousness
with the advent of the internet
& with the natural skepticism/questioning
humans are wired to have.
What person have you met
who has attended church
and doesn't question
the existence of God?

I think the problem catholics had with heliocentric view of the solar system(Was it called the solar system before then or was it called the Terran system?)was that it put focus on something other than us.

In this way it IS like evolution, it threatenes the idea that we were created, though it doesn't proove in any way we weren't. The church is quite simply, a beurocracy, it is a hierarchy, things must be aproved before they are allowed. That is all, when there is external pressure, one is reluctant to change, but when that pressure subsides and people within the church begin to change, that is when it happens.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

The initial support of these theories came from within the Catholic church.

So did the initial attempts at suppression. As I recall the Dominicans were the very first group to call it heretical and try to have it banned. Also, while it's true that some within the catholic church supported it initially, by the end the catholic church was pretty firmly set against it. By the end even the Jesuit astronomers, who you would think would know better, where against heliocentrism on theological grounds.

Originally Posted by kojax

So...... probably one change that heliocentrism may have forced on the christians was that they had to retreat to the Bible as the only source of infallible information.

,..... which may have contributed to the rise of protestantism.

The protestants (and Martin Luther in particular) weren't fans of heliocentrism either.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I think the problem catholics had with heliocentric view of the solar system(Was it called the solar system before then or was it called the Terran system?)was that it put focus on something other than us.

In this way it IS like evolution, it threatenes the idea that we were created, though it doesn't proove in any way we weren't. The church is quite simply, a beurocracy, it is a hierarchy, things must be aproved before they are allowed. That is all, when there is external pressure, one is reluctant to change, but when that pressure subsides and people within the church begin to change, that is when it happens.

Well...the Pope has approved of evolution, but still alot of descent, mostly Southern Baptists but there are many others.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I think the problem catholics had with heliocentric view of the solar system(Was it called the solar system before then or was it called the Terran system?)was that it put focus on something other than us.

In this way it IS like evolution, it threatenes the idea that we were created, though it doesn't proove in any way we weren't. The church is quite simply, a beurocracy, it is a hierarchy, things must be aproved before they are allowed. That is all, when there is external pressure, one is reluctant to change, but when that pressure subsides and people within the church begin to change, that is when it happens.

So, they'll allow something once they think it's their own idea.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

The initial support of these theories came from within the Catholic church.

So did the initial attempts at suppression. As I recall the Dominicans were the very first group to call it heretical and try to have it banned. Also, while it's true that some within the catholic church supported it initially, by the end the catholic church was pretty firmly set against it. By the end even the Jesuit astronomers, who you would think would know better, where against heliocentrism on theological grounds.

Kepler was a Jesuit, wasn't he?

They must have figured it out at some point.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by kojax

So...... probably one change that heliocentrism may have forced on the christians was that they had to retreat to the Bible as the only source of infallible information.

,..... which may have contributed to the rise of protestantism.

The protestants (and Martin Luther in particular) weren't fans of heliocentrism either.

You're probably right. What I'm saying is that the popular support required for break off protestant groups might have been influenced by a growing lack of faith in the infallibility of the Catholic leadership.

If they can be wrong about one thing, then they can be wrong about other things.