Medieval monks knew science

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Interesting video...about comets and medieval monks.

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p07jljv5/how-medieval-monks-are-revealing-our-universe-s-mysteries

They weren't as ignorant as people might think.

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

Enjoyed that.  Thanks 

[Robbie]

Sririam:-  They weren't as ignorant as people might think.
----

I wasn't aware that people thought they were ignorant, on the contrary monasteries were places where learning and research were encouraged. The monks had a peaceful atmosphere in which to work, indeed some were attracted to the religious life for that very reason. I think there were probably quite a lot of 'nerds' amongst them & they comfortably fitted monasticism. 

Mendel was the monk I particularly thought of, but this wiki article gives a list:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists  (they're not all mediaeval, some more recent).

Interesting article.

[Sriram]

Robbie,

Yes...Gregor Mendel and even Darwin, among many others, show that there was no conflict between Faith and science even among Christians.  People thought of nature as God's creation and Science as a tool to unravel God's design and God's plans. 

Why suddenly in the mid 20th Century such a  big divide got created I wonder. It is not necessarily inevitable as many people here seem to think. Lot depends on the culture one grows up in, I think.

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

Sririam:-  They weren't as ignorant as people might think.
----

I wasn't aware that people thought they were ignorant, on the contrary monasteries were places where learning and research were encouraged. The monks had a peaceful atmosphere in which to work, indeed some were attracted to the religious life for that very reason. I think there were probably quite a lot of 'nerds' amongst them & they comfortably fitted monasticism. 

Mendel was the monk I particularly thought of, but this wiki article gives a list:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists  (they're not all mediaeval, some more recent).

Interesting article.

There was learning in the early medieval period, but it was restricted largely within the confines of the church.  The general population were deeply superstitious, believing the world to be populated by all manner of mythic creatures, angels, mermaids, dogmen etc.  The church had an agenda to keep knowledge to itself; William Tyndale, who first translated the Bible into the common man's vernacular, English, was hunted down and murdered. Galileo was threatened with torture by the church unless he rescinded his ideas, which we now know are true.

And in some form, this divide persists to this day; 150 years after Darwin there are still significant populations that deny evolution by natural selection, and this denial is almost always rooted in religious opposition to science.

[Udayana]

Robbie,

Yes...Gregor Mendel and even Darwin, among many others, show that there was no conflict between Faith and science even among Christians.  People thought of nature as God's creation and Science as a tool to unravel God's design and God's plans. 

Why suddenly in the mid 20th Century such a  big divide got created I wonder. It is not necessarily inevitable as many people here seem to think. Lot depends on the culture one grows up in, I think.

Cheers.

Sriram

There is no great divide or conflict. You get into problems and arguments because you misrepresent metaphysical ideas as objective truths.

[Robbie]

Torridon, what you say is very true. I've known one or two who believe the earth was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old despite evidence to the contrary. Despite that I don't think there is a huge divide.

Sometimes I think people believe what they want to believe as there's no great pressure nowadays, from the mainstream churches, to believe literally.

[SusanDoris]

Torridon, what you say is very true. I've known one or two who believe the earth was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old despite evidence to the contrary. Despite that I don't think there is a huge divide.

Sometimes I think people believe what they want to believe as there's no great pressure nowadays, from the mainstream churches, to believe literally.

And thank goodness for that. Perhaps it brings faith belief leaders a fraction closer to admitting that the God etc they tell people is true/ loves them/wants this and that/etc is a myth, entirely created in the human imagination, and the sooner the better.

I am prone to mention Jasper Fforde's Bookworld series  wherein the main character, Thursday Next, has a brother, Joffy, who is a vicar in the Church of the GSD - Global Standard Deity. Everyone is fully aware that no such god exists, but they like the way the church has a meeting place, routines, functions for namings, marriages and funerals, etc etc. the whole system works very well!

[Spud]

Torridon, what you say is very true. I've known one or two who believe the earth was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old despite evidence to the contrary. Despite that I don't think there is a huge divide.

Sometimes I think people believe what they want to believe as there's no great pressure nowadays, from the mainstream churches, to believe literally.

The belief that all life arose from single celled creatures is as fanciful as creationism. Everyone has a belief about origins, and all such belief is fanciful. It's just a question of which, if any, is right. Creationists believe the Bible is God's special revelation and so they believe in six days. It's no harder to believe than molecules to man evolution, which is full of holes.

[Stranger]

The belief that all life arose from single celled creatures is as fanciful as creationism.

Well, an actual cell is not likely to have been the first replicator subject to natural selection. Cells would have evolved from something simpler. However, the scientific theory (not "belief") that life evolved from simple beginnings is not in the lest bit fanciful - it is one of the most well established theories in science.

Creationists believe the Bible is God's special revelation and so they believe in six days. It's no harder to believe than molecules to man evolution, which is full of holes.

The evidence that the universe and earth are very old and were not poofed into existence in six days a few thousand years ago,  is even more comprehensive and overwhelming than that for evolution.

If the creation myth you cling to is true, it makes your god a liar - because the overwhelming evidence in its creation is telling us something entirely different.

[Outrider]

The belief that all life arose from single celled creatures is as fanciful as creationism.

The word you were looking for there wasn't 'belief' it was 'conclusion'...

Everyone has a belief about origins, and all such belief is fanciful. It's just a question of which, if any, is right.

It's never 'just' anything - it's about what basis you have for your claim, what impositions come along with your acceptance of one school of thought or the other, how willing your compatriots are to kill people if they don't like your opinion...

Creationists believe the Bible is God's special revelation and so they believe in six days. It's no harder to believe than molecules to man evolution, which is full of holes.

It's harder for some people to accept, because they want 'evidence' and 'causal mechanisms'.  Also, to note, there are creationists who are perfectly happy with the concept of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection being a sufficient explanation for the development of all current life from a common ancestor - some Creationists believe in a young Earth and six literal days, others are more figurative in their interpretation.

O.

[Spud]

The word you were looking for there wasn't 'belief' it was 'conclusion'...

I wonder how many hours scientists have spent mixing chemicals together in the hope that a life form will arise, yet still conclude that this happened by chance billions of years ago.
Some of us conclude based on the miracles in the Bible that God made life miraculously.

Well, an actual cell is not likely to have been the first replicator subject to natural selection. Cells would have evolved from something simpler. However, the scientific theory (not "belief") that life evolved from simple beginnings is not in the lest bit fanciful - it is one of the most well established theories in science.

The evidence that the universe and earth are very old and were not poofed into existence in six days a few thousand years ago,  is even more comprehensive and overwhelming than that for evolution.

I'll concede that distant starlight appears to lead to the conclusion that everything is billions of years old, however, this has its own problems because you have to invoke dark matter to account for star and galaxy formation. Also, I don't agree there is evidence for macroevolution.

If the creation myth you cling to is true, it makes your god a liar - because the overwhelming evidence in its creation is telling us something entirely different.

Again, distant starlight is the only thing I currently see as a contradiction to six day creation. Yet when I see pictures of supernova SN1987 I think of it in terms of a recent event, even though it can't yet be explained as one.

[ippy]

Robbie,

Yes...Gregor Mendel and even Darwin, among many others, show that there was no conflict between Faith and science even among Christians.  People thought of nature as God's creation and Science as a tool to unravel God's design and God's plans. 

Why suddenly in the mid 20th Century such a  big divide got created I wonder. It is not necessarily inevitable as many people here seem to think. Lot depends on the culture one grows up in, I think.

Cheers.

Sriram

Yes Sriram our minds are evolving, there you are no need to waste any more time delving into woo, not that their's anything there to delve into in the first place.

Cheers old boy.

ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

Everyone has a belief about origins, and all such belief is fanciful. It's just a question of which, if any, is right. Creationists believe the Bible is God's special revelation and so they believe in six days.

And yet the Genesis account states that the Sun was not made until the 4th "day". How were the earlier three "days" measured?

[Dicky Underpants]

I wonder how many hours scientists have spent mixing chemicals together in the hope that a life form will arise, yet still conclude that this happened by chance billions of years ago.

The chances of replicating those original conditions in a laboratory are indeed remote, since we don't know what those original conditions were exactly, nor can we replicate the cataclysmic forces which were acting upon those lifeless substances with any accuracy. You're talking about hours in laboratories contrasted with the billions of years available to natural forces.

[Stranger]

I wonder how many hours scientists have spent mixing chemicals together in the hope that a life form will arise, yet still conclude that this happened by chance billions of years ago.
Some of us conclude based on the miracles in the Bible that God made life miraculously.

Firstly abiogenesis is a different subject from evolution - and if I had a pound for every time I've pointed that out to a creationist, I'd be rich by now.

There is endless evidence that life evolved from a common ancestor on the early Earth about 4 billion years ago. The first replicator subject to natural selection got there, at that time, somehow.

We don't yet know how that happened but that mystery doesn't help a jot with the fairytale creation story with  the magic garden and the talking snake, a few thousand years ago. That has simply been falsified by countless different lines of evidence, from geology, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, genetics, astrophysics, archaeology - hell, some ice cores are much older than creationist universe is supposed to be.

I'll concede that distant starlight appears to lead to the conclusion that everything is billions of years old, however, this has its own problems because you have to invoke dark matter to account for star and galaxy formation.

Distant star light is just one part of the evidence from one discipline. I really don't know why you think dark matter is a problem.

Also, I don't agree there is evidence for macroevolution.

Then you're just wrong. "Macroevolution" isn't a distinct process - it's just lots of "microevolution".

Again, distant starlight is the only thing I currently see as a contradiction to six day creation.

This is a joke, right? Tell me you're joking...

Yet when I see pictures of supernova SN1987 I think of it in terms of a recent event, even though it can't yet be explained as one.

What are you talking about?

[Dicky Underpants]

Firstly abiogenesis is a different subject from evolution - and if I had a pound for every time I've pointed that out to a creationist, I'd be rich by now.

There is endless evidence that life evolved from a common ancestor on the early Earth about 4 billion years ago. The first replicator subject to natural selection got there, at that time, somehow.

I was about to mention drawing a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution in my post, but felt that I'd be pissing into the wind, and decided to let someone better informed than myself to attempt to educate the boneheads for the Nth time.
Well done you for stepping forward!

[jeremyp]

Robbie,

Yes...Gregor Mendel and even Darwin, among many others, show that there was no conflict between Faith and science even among Christians.  People thought of nature as God's creation and Science as a tool to unravel God's design and God's plans. 

Why suddenly in the mid 20th Century such a  big divide got created I wonder. It is not necessarily inevitable as many people here seem to think. Lot depends on the culture one grows up in, I think.

Cheers.

Sriram

Darwin is a bad choice. He was never particularly religious and, in fact lost his faith when his daughter died. Georges Le Maitre would be a better example for your argument.

[Spud]

Macroevolution" isn't a distinct process - it's just lots of "microevolution".

Macroevolution is life forms becoming progressively more complex, which is what you claimed ("life evolved from simple beginnings ")

[torridon]

Also, I don't agree there is evidence for macroevolution.

Of course there is evidence for 'macroevolution'.  Who are you to dismiss it ?  It is all out there in the public domain, and access to knowledge in the internet age is easy compared to previous generations.  Maybe you have been debilitated by poor upbringing or maybe you had lousy teachers in school, but now you are an adult with internet access there is nothing to stop you finding out information and learning about the real world.  Just because you haven't come across it yet does not mean it does not exist.  Evidence for 'macroevolution' is voluminous and found in many intersecting disciplines of learning.  it is there whether or not you choose to be blind to it.

[Stranger]

Macroevolution is life forms becoming progressively more complex, which is what you claimed ("life evolved from simple beginnings ")

Which happens by the exact same processes as microevolution, accumulated over a long period of time. The distinction is arbitrary and human-made. As torridon has already pointed out, there is plenty of evidence and it isn't a secret - it's easily found. If you accept microevolution, and try to deny macroevolution, not only do you have to deny all the overwhelming evidence, but you also need to explain what keeps microevolution micro.

[Spud]

St. Ranger,
We've been through examples before, of 'older' fossils than the less complex animals they are thought to arise from. Instead of interpreting this as evidence against macroevolution, you assert that it pushes the transition date back further, and insist we wait for older fossils of the supposed ancestor to be uncovered.
What keeps microevolution micro? I don't know. The evidence suggests that it does stay micro.

[Christine]

St. Ranger,
We've been through examples before, of 'older' fossils than the less complex animals they are thought to arise from. Instead of interpreting this as evidence against macroevolution, you assert that it pushes the transition date back further, and insist we wait for older fossils of the supposed ancestor to be uncovered.
What keeps microevolution micro? I don't know. The evidence suggests that it does stay micro.

Hi Spud,

Have you ever heard of Glenn Morton?  He was raised a YEC and educated in geology, the intention being that he would eventually expose the world-wide, cross-cultural scientific conspiracy to discredit the truth of the Bible from an unassailably expert position.  I won't spoil the end of the story for you. Search Morton's Demon.

[Outrider]

I wonder how many hours scientists have spent mixing chemicals together in the hope that a life form will arise, yet still conclude that this happened by chance billions of years ago.

I bet it doesn't come close to the billions of instances that could, conceivably, have been in place in the early Earth's various warm, wet areas.  Assuming, of course, that this hypothesis is, in fact, correct.

Some of us conclude based on the miracles in the Bible that God made life miraculously.

Conclude? I don't think that means what you think it means.  You don't 'conclude' that Biblical story of miraculous creation is true, you assume that it is. You accept it wholesale, not necessarily without questions or qualms, but it is not a 'conclusion', it is merely a given fact that is accepted independently of the evidence.

You might conclude that the odds are too fantastical for natural selection to have operated on random variation over billions of years, but that doesn't in any way support miraculous creation, it merely calls into question the current scientific model of Earth's history.  The 'conclusion' if you don't find the conventional science to be acceptable is 'we don't have a clue'.

O.

[Stranger]

We've been through examples before, of 'older' fossils than the less complex animals they are thought to arise from. Instead of interpreting this as evidence against macroevolution, you assert that it pushes the transition date back further, and insist we wait for older fossils of the supposed ancestor to be uncovered.

I don't know what examples you're thinking of, but a seriously out of place fossil would falsify the current picture. The famous comment from J B S Haldane, when asked what would falsify evolution, was "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian".

However, there is probably more evidence for evolution (macroevolution and common descent) from genetics than there is in the fossil record. Remember, genetics was unknown at the time the theory was formulated and could have falsified it at one fell swoop - instead of which, it spectacularly corroborated it and added greatly to our understanding.
 

What keeps microevolution micro? I don't know. The evidence suggests that it does stay micro.

Where is this evidence and why do you think nobody, without a religious vested interest, working in the field, has noticed it?