Does the following quote from Martin Luther make you think of another scientific discussion?

Question

"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 [or 'man'] 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."

- Martin Luther, in reference to Copernicus.

Is this any different than our discussion of evolution vs creationism?

Answer 1

Nova did a series it called "Genius," and in 2002, one of the episodes was "Galileo's Battle for the Heavens." Galileo was the one who made a mathematical proof for the Copernican model, filled it out and made it believable. Nevertheless, the Inquisition forced him to recant.

Reading the Luther quote, can you tell which portion is said seriously, and which ironically? Because he seems to have it both ways, if you read it carefully.

As to its relation to the evolution v. creationism (or Darwinism v. creationism, if you want to keep your terms parallel), that was also addressed in the "Genius" series under the title "Evolution: Darwin's Dangerous Idea." Why dangerous? For the same reason Galileo had to battle. The church had a stranglehold on what would or would not be considered TRUTH. I believe they perceived these scientists as challenging the truth of the Bible. More realistically, they challenged the idea of taking Bible truths as scientific.

The Bible is about spiritual matters, and should not be consulted for scientific matters. Science as we understand the term had not even been invented/discovered at the time the Bible was compiled, but the brain (God-given brain, if you go that way) was there and obviously meant to be used. Used, I might add, for more than twisted propaganda and rhetoric.

Answer 2

Martin Luther fought against the Catholic Church in his later days he lived an imbittered lifestyles, and suggested some issues that have been very incorrect. In that day many females did die in childbirth and it grow to be terrible as that's right this moment. David in Jesus care and prayer in authentic salvation and happiness as a replace of bitterness as a replace of cursing interior the darkness, gentle a candle and supply some gentle

Answer 3

No, not really. People who are true believers but not scientists passionately want their ideas to be true. Scientists who have spent their lives in hard work and study just as passionately want their side to be true. It doesn't really matter what the question is, as long as there is religion and science, there will still be a dividing line until the religious and the scientific recognize that there could be a middle ground that allows both sides to be true.

Answer 4

No difference whatsoever. The only positive that I can find to religion inherently impeding scientific advancement is that it strengthens the scientific issue at hand. Intense scrutiny leads to a better understanding.

Answer 5

Evolution Vs Creation is only a real debate in the minds of Creationists.
It's not even an issue amongst the scientific establishment.

Answer 6

This is somewhat like the misguided souls, who imagine that
they can stop the natural cycle, of global warming, by exchanging or buying, pieces of paper called CO2 credits.

Answer 7

I'm sorry, but I can't resist the oppertunity to take not only an old cliché, but to turn it into a bad pun....it's just not possible.

"I suppose there's nothing new under the sun."

I'll attone for that later.

Answer 8

Now I know the meaning of Top Contributor.

Answer 9

No. The exact same. It'll end the same way.