Remember NASA? Well, say goodbye.

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

What could possibly go wrong?

We find intelligent life and Rafael Cruz tries to convert them

[TGHusker]

Where is John Kennedy when we need him? I'd like to see NASA expanded. So much good came out of it. Many ridiculed Newt for suggesting that NASA take on the task of getting man to Mars - that is the kind of big thinking we need wt a scientific agency like NASA (it may not have to be Mars as a target but some big idea). NASA has more than paid for itself over the years with what it has contributed to the society as a whole. New inventions that have helped everyone outside of the space program. We need big thinkers even when the budget is tight - maybe esp when the budget is tight. One can be critical of FDR for all of big govt spending he did, but I've gained a greater appreciation for him - he was a big thinker and big thinkers move the society along. I have the book FDR and it says perhaps outside of Reagan, FDR had the greatest optimistic view of America and Americans than any other president (don't have the exact quote wt me - can't remember if the author said for the last century or history of the nation). It is really this type of optimism at the top levels that move us forward. JFK had it wt the start of NASA. Conservatives can be either the optimistic type (Reagan) or the negative type (too often found). Cruz is the negative type. He doesn't inspire us to be bigger.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

Obama's White House has proposed budget cuts in conjunction with negotiations with the congress. Obama supports science and scientific exploration but must figure out a way to balance the books.

 

Ted Cruz' 2013 proposed budget would have cut NASA as well - cuts to NASA funding come from all over, not just the White House. Pretending Obama is solely responsible for NASA's funding cuts ignores facts.

 

Agreed. But, the title of the topic was also painting with a pretty narrow brush, as if TC was singlehandedly going to take down NASA. Just trying to provide a little balance (when I probably shouldn't because, well, TC is a joke)

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to defend Ted Cruz.

 

I doubt he could possibly harm NASA more than Obama has. He obviously is not the best or even a good choice for a science position but, let's get real, science isn't going to get set back because of one guy. If it can't stand up to that, it was probably on shaky ground to begin with.

But wait, the obligatorys; OMFG, f#*k, and unf'nbelievable. There.

 

Says science has been set back by Obama-one guy.

Says science can't be harmed by one person to defend Ted Cruz.

Pretty good baiting job by both of you but I'm not playing. I made it pretty clear that I don't think much of Cruz and that science isn't an area he should be involved with but, if you want to ignore that part of what I've actually said and act like I'm defending him instead of acknowledging what I really said, well, I guess that's why I don't come around these here parts much any more. Also I guess for at least a couple of you that the thread title doesn't intimate anything other than the absolute truth, which in your minds must be that TC is the only and single biggest threat to NASA eva. Way to be rational.

[JJ Husker]

 

I doubt he could possibly harm NASA more than Obama has. He obviously is not the best or even a good choice for a science position but, let's get real, science isn't going to get set back because of one guy. If it can't stand up to that, it was probably on shaky ground to begin with.

 

But wait, the obligatorys; OMFG, f#*k, and unf'nbelievable. There.

Says science has been set back by Obama-one guy.

Says science can't be harmed by one person to defend Ted Cruz.

 

Actually, if you use that thing on top of your neck and actually comprehend what I said, you would realize that I didn't actually say either of those things. I'll repeat once and see if you, and those who are plus 1ing you, can discern the difference.

 

1- I said I doubted he could harm NASA more than Obama has. That is quite different than saying science has been set back by one guy. Really, could anybody possibly think that the very broad field of science has been set back by only one person? There are many, many people who have set science back and many people who are responsible for harming NASA. So no, I didn't say anything even remotely resembling what you claim I said.

 

2- Again, to help with your comprehension level, I did not say "science" can't be harmed by one person. Anybody can harm science, ranging from just a little bit up to some pretty serious damage. What I said was that Ted Cruz wasn't going to set back science all by himself. That is not the same thing as not inflicting some damage, it just acknowledges that science is a much more substantial thing than what Cruz, or Obama, or any one person, can ruin on his own. And where, oh please tell me where, I "defended" Ted Cruz. I would like to see that because I think he's a f'ing idiot that should stay about 100 miles away from anything science related. My intent was to point out that NASA has a lot more detractors, and a lot more people that have already harmed NASA than just one Mr. Ted Cruz.

[knapplc]

So we all agree that Ted Cruz is a disaster for this position.

[ShawnWatson]

So we all agree that Ted Cruz is a disaster for this position.

Ted Cruz is a disaster for any position.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

It's not that science won't stand up to anything Cruz might do to destroy it. Galileo was still purporting his thoughts that the Earth revolved around the sun despite immense persecution for it. Science will always exist, no matter the prevailing ideology.

 

It's a travesty that the person in charge of a subcommittee related to science doesn't have many scientifically backed thoughts and ideas. Funding is a powerful determinant of if research is or is not undertaken.

 

Religion and science don't get along. It scares me that a person as devoutly religious and seemingly incapable of separating the two such as Ted Cruz is in charge of a subcommittee related to science.

 

Will anything happens? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

 

 

But, if you'll excuse me, I have a color by number page I must be finishing.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

So we all agree that Ted Cruz is a disaster for this position.

Ted Cruz is a disaster for any position.

 

 

Ted Cruz is a disaster.

[JJ Husker]

So we all agree that Ted Cruz is a disaster for this position.

 

 

It's not that science won't stand up to anything Cruz might do to destroy it. Galileo was still purporting his thoughts that the Earth revolved around the sun despite immense persecution for it. Science will always exist, no matter the prevailing ideology.

 

It's a travesty that the person in charge of a subcommittee related to science doesn't have many scientifically backed thoughts and ideas. Funding is a powerful determinant of if research is or is not undertaken.

 

Religion and science don't get along. It scares me that a person as devoutly religious and seemingly incapable of separating the two such as Ted Cruz is in charge of a subcommittee related to science.

 

Will anything happens? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

 

 

But, if you'll excuse me, I have a color by number page I must be finishing.

Agreed and mostly agreed. I think science and religion CAN coexist and get along together nicely but, unfortunately they don't in most cases, especially when far right nutjobs like Cruz are involved.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

[TGHusker]

 

So we all agree that Ted Cruz is a disaster for this position.

 

 

It's not that science won't stand up to anything Cruz might do to destroy it. Galileo was still purporting his thoughts that the Earth revolved around the sun despite immense persecution for it. Science will always exist, no matter the prevailing ideology.

 

It's a travesty that the person in charge of a subcommittee related to science doesn't have many scientifically backed thoughts and ideas. Funding is a powerful determinant of if research is or is not undertaken.

 

Religion and science don't get along. It scares me that a person as devoutly religious and seemingly incapable of separating the two such as Ted Cruz is in charge of a subcommittee related to science.

 

Will anything happens? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

 

 

But, if you'll excuse me, I have a color by number page I must be finishing.

Agreed and mostly agreed. I think science and religion CAN coexist and get along together nicely but, unfortunately they don't in most cases, especially when far right nutjobs like Cruz are involved.

 

Agree - science and faith can co-exist and actually have for centuries. A partial list of leading committed Christian scientists would include: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Lebniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel. A good # of these were clergy/priests. Gassendi and Mersenne were priests as was Georges Lemaitre - the Belgian astronomer who first proposed the 'big bang' theory (the theory not the tv show). Mendel, discoverer of the principles of heredity, spent his entire adult life as a monk in an Augustinian monastery. Copernicus, who was a canon in the cathedral of Krakow said astronomy was 'a science more divine than human' and viewed his heliocentric theory as revealing God's grand scheme for the cosmos. Newton, perhaps one of, if not the greatest scientists of all time and who wrote long commentaries on biblical topics as well, viewed his discoveries as showing the creative genius of God's handiwork in nature. "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, he wrote, 'could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. (Richard Westfall "Isaac Newton" Science and Religion - Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ Press 2002 p 155). One can also remember that the church founded many of the leading universities of Western Europe and America - where free thought and reason was the emphasis. Pope Benedick XVI noted in a speech in Regensburg, Germany (Sept 12, 2006) that the rise of scientific study & discovery in Europe centuries before was due to Christianity's emphasis on the importance of reason. He said reason is a central distinguishing feature of Christianity. While Islam and Judaism are religions of law, Christianity is a religion of creed - centered on theology or doctrine - knowing and understanding God, His principles and His ways. and man's relationship with God. The Christian theologian is charged with employing reason to understand the ways of God. Christian scientists also saw science as a means of understanding God. Thomas Aquinas said "We shall first try to manifest the truth that faith professes and reason investigates, setting forth demonstrative and probable arguments, so that the truth may be confirmed and the adversary convinced" "So vast (the universe), without question, is the divine handiwork of the Almighty Creator!" Nicolaus Copernicus

[knapplc]

The church convicted Galileo of heresy and he was excommunicated. Without going through that list in any greater detail, I'm going to say the relationship between most of those scientists and the church was pretty rocky.

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

 

 

So we all agree that Ted Cruz is a disaster for this position.

 

Ted Cruz is a disaster for any position.

Ted Cruz is a disaster.

Agreed! Does he even hold any degrees in science or is this just strictly a position for him to destroy their budget?

[TGHusker]

The church convicted Galileo of heresy and he was excommunicated. Without going through that list in any greater detail, I'm going to say the relationship between most of those scientists and the church was pretty rocky.

Ahh the Galileo issue - yes this is the 'proof text', if you will, of those who want to prove that the church is anti-science. As Paul Harvey would say, there is the rest of the story that Dawkins, Hawkings etc leave out.

 

He was not excommunicated. Tried yes but not excommunicated. He went to mass up to the time of his death.

 

From the blog sited below:

The fact is that the Catholic Church has never condemned heliocentrism. The theory itself was formulated by a Catholic priest named Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543 AD. Copernicus dedicated his publication on the matter to Pope Paul III, and the theory was well received in the Catholic Church.

 

There are plenty of good resources out there that explain this episode in greater detail. At the heart of the issue, it wasn't about science but rather political and Galileo stepping outside of the realm of science and into theology. While it is still unfortunate there was a trial, the main issue was not church vs science.

 

Thomas Lessl, "The Galileo Legend" New Oxford Review June 2000;

Reprinted here:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/the-galileo-legend.html

 

 

A Portion of the article ( I suggest reading the full article for the rest of the story):

Another apocryphal embellishment is the claim that Galileo, after his forced recantation, muttered, "Nevertheless, it does move." This addition may truthfully impress upon readers the strength of Galileo's scientific convictions, but it also gives an impression of defiance that was not characteristic of his attitude toward the Catholic Church. Galileo, who remained loyal to the Church to the very end of his life and was even carried to daily mass when he became too feeble to walk clearly understood that he had been the victim of an academic feud and that the Church had been drawn in on the side of his enemies only through beguilement.

The facts that are consistently left out of this story are probably more critical to its misunderstanding than are the embellishments. The most important of these is the story's failure to acknowledge the role that academic politics played in this affair. Historians have known for some time that the sequence of events that eventually led to the Church's actions against Galileo was set in motion by secular academics, not priests, and this changes the whole complexion of the affair. Galileo's academic enemies had much more to lose than did the Church if the Copernican world view turned out to be right, and this makes them the more plausible villains of this story. Galileo's personal correspondence indicates that he shared this view.

Those who bear such tales also fail to mention that the judgment against Copernicanism came at a time when the Church was greatly preoccupied with the challenges of the Protestant Reformation. Related to this is the notable fact almost never mentioned in legendary accounts that Copernicus' De Revolutionibus Orbium had been in print for nearly seventy years before the Church placed any restrictions on its teachings. The Church's first formal response to the Copernican hypothesis seems to have been triggered by Galileo's Letter to Castelli, an apology for Copernicanism which advocated a figurative reading of Scripture in order to resolve the theory's apparent conflicts with the Bible. Although Galileo's approach to biblical interpretation was completely in keeping with the Catholic tradition, it had another more troubling implication. Galileo was asserting, in effect, that where scientific findings conflicted with the literal sense of the Scriptures, scientists should have the right to independently determine what the Bible means. For a scientist to assert this was tantamount to sanctioning the private interpretation of the Bible, a Protestant view expressly forbidden by the Council of Trent. Galileo had unwittingly embroiled the Copernican question in a much larger and more complex controversy.

It is not an accident that such complicating factors as this are never discussed in popular scientific accounts. Clearly those who tell this story have strong ideological interests which make the maligning of the Christian Church attractive. A big part of this seems to be the belief shared by such storytellers that the scientific way of life would operate best in a world untroubled by religious belief. In fact one of the main themes of the Galileo legend seems to be the idea that Christianity is an anti-scientific monster, now safely caged, that sought to devour science at the moment of its birth. This in fact is how the story is presented in what is perhaps the most popular treatment of science ever published, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time:

Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned conflict with the Catholic Church was central to his philosophy, for Galileo was one of the first to argue that man could hope to understand how the world works, and, moreover, that we could do this by observing the real world.

 

Since the author of this passage is often compared with Einstein and Newton in the popular press, his readers (approximately nine million to date) are likely to assume that he is simply telling it like it is. But that conclusion would be wrong. Hawking's genius as a mathematician and theoretical physicist does not make him an historian of any kind. Neither does it lessen the temptation to succumb to a romantic legend that seems to lend itself to his preconceptions.Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned conflict with the Catholic Church was central to his philosophy, for Galileo was one of the first to argue that man could hope to understand how the world works, and, moreover, that we could do this by observing the real world.

Hawking greatly overstates the degree of responsibility that Galileo had for the rise of modern science. While Galileo contributed some refinements to scientific method, enlarged the mathematical emphasis of science, and made important discoveries, science of the kind he practiced was not "born" with him. What we call "modern science" is a compilation of ideas, techniques, philosophical assumptions, and information that accumulated over many centuries and drew from a multitude of cultures. Notably, and contrary to what Hawking suggests, pivotal contributions to its growth were made in medieval Europe, when the Catholic Church was virtually the sole patron of learning. Perhaps the most notable of these contributions is the development of experimental method, something frequently credited to Galileo in popular legend. The basics of experimental design were laid out in the thirteenth century by the saintly Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste. By the time Galileo came along, four hundred years latter, such investigative techniques, now greatly refined, had found their way into universities all over Europe.

 

 

This Catholic blogger does a good summary (I'm not Catholic by the way)

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/03/galileo-inquisition-fully-explained.html

Last paragraph:

Contrary to popular urban legend, the Galileo inquisition was a political one, not a scientific one. Galileo was tried and condemned for what was perceived to be an attack on the pope, along with an attempt to preach scientific theory as theological truth. The Catholic Church never officially condemned Copernicus' theory of heliocentricity. It did condemn one of Galileo's statements that the sun is the center of the universe. On that point, the Catholic Church was actually right. Scientific discovery would later prove that the universe is much bigger than the solar system, and that the sun is actually orbiting the galaxy, and our galaxy itself moves away from the center of the universe. The Galileo inquisition should be understood as a tragedy in the realm of politics - not science. For years, both Protestants and Secularists have used the Galileo inquisition to mock the Catholic Church as an opponent of heliocentrism. Such mockers fail to understand the history of the theory itself. Heliocentricity was actually invented by a Catholic priest named Nicolaus Copernicus more than half a century BEFORE the Galileo inquisition. The Catholic Church always allowed the teaching of heliocentricity as a scientific theory before, during and after the Galileo inquisition. Finally, the Galileo inquisition was a political tragedy centered around Galileo himself, mainly because the poor fellow didn't exercise the good sense to distance himself from theology and inadvertently made out the pope to look like a fool in a time when the Catholic Church was highly defensive.

 

This Blogger/Poster provides the following insight:

http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76916

The Galileo Controversy

 

It is commonly, though incorrectly, believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

 

Anti-scientific?

The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for the scientific achievements.

 

Clinging to Tradition?

Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the

Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Galileo "Confronts" Rome

Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.

 

Tortured for His Beliefs?

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under threat of torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.

 

Infallibility

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

[knapplc]

OK. To be wholly accurate, the church did not "excommunicate" Galileo. He was "vehemently suspected of heresy" and punished for said heresy. His heresy being:

 

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

 

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

 

Without getting into a huge cultural sidebar about why Galileo (and Copernicus) would necessarily have to be adherents to the Catholic faith at the time in which they lived, or to have the resources available to conduct their studies, I'll just state that these revisionist history claims about the Church being OK with science/scientists is factually inaccurate at best, and a gross mischaracterization by definition.