So who did more to suppress science?

[Sticks]

There has been a lot of chatter about Intelligent Design,, or as I call it "God of the gaps revisited", which from what I can see came mostly from what is termed by detractors "the religious right", (as opposed to religious left???), which tends to be protestant.

From What I here science teachers were put under pressure to teach things against their consciences.

Now last night I was wacthing a history programme about how the Roman Catholic church, during the time of Luther stomped on scientific thought through the inquisition, with persecution, (e.g Galilleo), and even executed people for teaching things contra to Holy Mother Church teachings. The Catholic church today now is engaged fully in scientific study with the Vatican observatory, holding seminars on evolution and recognising it was wrong on Galilleo etc.

So who has done more to suppress scientific thought, the old RC church or the modern day fundamentalist movements.

Are there lessons for today's faith proponents to be learned from how the RC church came in from the cold?

[Maksutov]

This strikes me as a fundamentally religion-based post that is outside the scope of this forum, as defined by the Rules.

If we focus on which groups tried to suppress scientific thought and progress, that's one thing, but to limit it to religious groups would appear to be counter to the tenets of this board. That's focusing more on religion than on astronomy.

As various religious parties express their contrasting views, it can only wind up being locked.

[sarongsong]

The current U.S. administration is certainly doing its share.

[Sticks]

This strikes me as a fundamentally religion-based post that is outside the scope of this forum, as defined by the Rules.

If we focus on which groups tried to suppress scientific thought and progress, that's one thing, but to limit it to religious groups would appear to be counter to the tenets of this board. That's focusing more on religion than on astronomy.

As various religious parties express their contrasting views, it can only wind up being locked.

Sorry

I did ask someone else via msn if they thought it contraveined regulations prior to posting and they thought asit was discussing an attack on science it was valid.

[farmerjumperdon]

I can forgive parties from the distant past as I feel they were acting on what they thought they knew, and there was not a lot else to go on. Today's fundamentalists (be they fundamental for religious or other reasons) have no basis other than they wish it to be some other way. With all of the knowledge now available, they have no excuse for their willful denials.

[antoniseb]

I'd say that the general topic is not strictly against the rules of the forum which do permit discussions of religion or politics where they directly affect astronomy or spaceflight. Phil would have a tough time discussing ID otherwise.

However, I agree with Maksutov, in the sense that posing it as this question really makes it more of an attack on religious institutions (old or new), and it can't really be discussed openly within our rules without diving into the kind of contentious statements about heartfelt but unprovable matters that we normally try to avoid.

Broadly, there have been many times and places in which both church and state have made policies, and taken actions that have impeded the development and acceptance of science. We would need to define a lot of terms and ground-rules to know which had done more.

I'm going to close this thread, though no one is in any trouble for starting it.