Pope Fires his Chief Astronomer

Originally posted by LutherMaher
Your just recycling simplistic interpretations of complex historical events. Do you know anything beyond the one sentence referecnes to the Galileo incident in todays current events? Wait dont tell me....NO!

and it gets better when you study the issue more closely?

Originally posted by LutherMaher
if there is someone here with even a mediocre amount of knowledge in the fields of history and theology, I would invite you to discuss the Galileo story with me at my MSN Group

what about physics, astronomy? arn't they important in discussing this?

Originally posted by LutherMaher
name me an organization that has done more in human history to promote the sciences?
also you are still recycling the over-simplified generalizations that permeate the majority of laypeaoples examinations of past historical/scientific issues
read my article, which is based on an intelligence that has not penetrated this discussion from your perspective yet
its about information, and your in need

The Royal Institute. And the sentence should have read, name one institution that has done more to 'hold up' the development of science.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I'm afraid not. the Roman-Catholic Church does not take the Genesis story literally. You'll have to come up with something better than this.

Well I've come up with a source that I believe shows that the Catholic Church does indeed support a reading of Genesis that is moderately literal even with your retarded 'what counts as proof' definition.
Now do you want to provide evidence that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in a literal definition? Also you can only provide evidence since John Paul died and that doesn't use the letter w.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Name a scientific breakthrough brought about by the Catholic Church.

I'll give you a couple of dozen:

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sjscient.htm

Also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Btw, did you know that Seismology is nicknamed "The Jesuit Science"?

Originally posted by telerion
So the Rat Singer is a moron. What else is new?

Perhaps you'd enjoy the sandbox over in no1's "Playground-Namecalling-Dept"?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Why the Pope would need an astronomer - a chief astronomer, at that, indicating that he has a whole team of them - is truly beyond me.

The Pope doesn't need an astronomer.

Doesn't mean he can't have one.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If that were the case, why would the chief astronomer be fired? Did he fail to adhere to the scientific method? Did he fake experimental results?

1. FYI, he wasn't "fired". I don't know if he's retired or not (he is 73, after all), but he stepped down voluntarily.
2. A scientist who heads a scientific organisation can be asked (if, indeed, he was) to step down for any number of non-scientific reasons. For instance, he just might be a lousy administrator; or maybe there's a fixed term of office; or maybe there are better candidates waiting in the wings.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. FYI, he wasn't "fired". I don't know if he's retired or not (he is 73, after all), but he stepped down voluntarily.
2. A scientist who heads a scientific organisation can be asked (if, indeed, he was) to step down for any number of non-scientific reasons. For instance, he just might be a lousy administrator; or maybe there's a fixed term of office; or maybe there are better candidates waiting in the wings.

Don't be naive.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are simply naive if you think that reconciliation came about due to the church's scientific integrity.

Since you talk of scientific integrity, perhaps you'd like to explain to me what makes the Galilean-Copernican model a better scientific theory than the Tychonian model (given the information available at the time).

Let me give you a starting point -- which one had the better falsifiability criteria?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Don't be naive.

Don't be simplistic.

EDIT: Fr. Funes has already gone on record as saying that he is no fonder of ID than Fr. Coyne was.

Originally posted by no1marauder
He had it coming.

- LH

He could certainly have avoided it without sacrificing any scientific integrity.

- (Most modern historians of the subject)

Originally posted by no1marauder
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0604749.htm

This claims he was "on sabbatical". Apparently he had an article published in a English newspaper, The Tablet, on August 6, criticizing ID again. This seems to have been the last straw.

Read the Tablet article carefully. It's not his scientific views on ID that are problemmatic - it's his theology.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
He could certainly have avoided it without sacrificing any scientific integrity.

- (Most modern historians of the subject)

You never tire of this untruth. Have a nice time in RightWing, Extremist Catholic World; I debunked pretty much all your assertions months ago in the prior thread.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Read the Tablet article carefully. It's not his scientific views on ID that are problemmatic - it's his theology.

Sounds familar; where have I heard that before?

Is there a particular theological viewpoint required to be an astronomer for the Vatican?