One guy wrote:

I guess it was just a statement of an ongoing personal confusion in my mind about how some people will do an experiment in their basement and conclude that 2000 years of scientific progress and hundreds of truly brilliant and dedicated scientists are idiots and somehow just "missed the boat".

Another one responded:
Now this is a valid question........why do they?
Maybe it's in part due to a loose awareness of scientific process combined with the feeling that science has failed Humanity even though it thinks itself so smart. That we have a hole in our atmosphere that we face enourmous problems such as green house and global warming and they feel that they may have something that may save what they see as a desparate situation.
That they feel that something is not right when we say we have the cosmological answer yet we have what they feel is nothing. That there is more to know yet we have closed the door on future understanding with our sublime brilliance.....
That science is no longer intuitively logical. That they can see that it must be mistaken yet have no voice.
all those sorts of things I guess

Indeed, why they do that? Any other opinion?

know the history of science is what i say. know how it came from questioning the authoritarianism of the Church.

Know the Transition from Church to Science which not much is written about. which is?
Where it was agreed between Church and Science people that the former would take care of 'spiritual' matters, and th scientists of 'material' matters........so look at that PREsumption!

THAT alREADY there was shared paradigm that 'matter' and 'spirit' are and CAN be separated!

Do you see what i mean....? They BOTH share the same wordview but come at tit from different angles.

When eventually science dispenses even with the theological idea of a 'transcendent God', is when they become materilistis-mechanistic scientists. and this is where Nature becomes their plaything. totally descarilized as are humans. and this paradigm is going on now and creating all manner of trouble. For us, other species....very Nature itself

"The church" is meaningless. Claiming science arose as a reaction againt "the church" is silly.

Doctors and other scientists flocked to the Holy See in the 16th century because "the church" in northern Europe was Calvinist.

So we had "the church", because of stern sola scriptura dogma, hindering scientific reseach while, at the same time, 'the church" was overseeing the golden age (http://www.oldandsold.com/articles28/pope-and-science-4.shtml) of anatomy in Rome.

"The church" also supported the monk who was the father of genetics and the priest who developed the Big Bang theory of the creation of the Universe.

In America, "the church" was the driving force behind the creation of the Ivy League. Science and religion co-existed without conflict. The chemist who discovered O, CO2 and other gases, Joseph Priestly, was a minister. The study of metaphysics was seen as a prerequisite for the study of physics.

Took Isaac Newton over four decades of study to compile this:

OBSERVATIONS ON DANIEL AND THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN (http://www.historicist.com/Newton/title.htm)

Newton wrote over a million words on the Bible.

what about Galileo?

Duendy, don't try that promote the materialistic and spiritual stuff here. There is only one reality to this universe. And Spiritual is flawed.

Guys,
do you recall what the initial question of this thread was about?

duendy...what about him? The facts of the matter have been beaten to death. But, like the Inquisition and the flat earth, the propaganda is stronger than the truth (probably because it consists of one to three sentences).

If you honestly believe the church retarded astronomy, ask yourself why Cardinal Bessarion sponsored the writing of "Epitome of the Almagest"--a text read by every 16thC astronomer and why the church and Copernicus got along quite well (his sis was a nun).

The Cistercians--hi-tech gurus of the 12th and 13th centuries--are much more interesting. Water powered trip hammers and bellows. Fish hatcheries. Improved cattle and horse breeds. New fruit variates. Reclamation of wasteland. Sewers which flushed. Mass produced books which led to the rise of medieval universities. Not bad for an authoritarian ascetic order.

But to get back to your main point--that science was a reaction to "the church".

How could that be when "the church" promoted science and had the best libraries of scientific works in the world?

One look at the Cathedral of Chartres demolishes your contention. Secularists didn't build a 349 foot tall spire
in the 1140s. Secularists didn't have the knowledge to produce thoses stained glass windows.

Yes, me and you read different books. Therer seems to be a revisionining going on.
I just ask you to consider Thomas Kuhn, and his work about how scientific revolutions take place. It is usually the p[eople who hold old ideas are hard to crack, and there can be tears.
Jeeez, you only have to observe it at forums like this. how hard people take it when their beliefs may be cahallenged. but when a movement has much of its POWER invested in a belief then the reluctance to relinquish that privileged power is gonna be even harder fought for.

But i am sure i DID say that the Churh and Science in the Transition decided.agreed that the Church would look after 'spiritual' matters whilst science, 'material matters'. an I am stressing that the premise they BOTh shared was/is a dichotomy between spirit and matter. this is the most important point, not about who persecuted Galileo.
Or are you nw gonna tell me that this is a legend to?
if so i will very much want sources and as much elaboration as you can muster

coincidentally, i have noticed that in out TV listings for this week on Wednesday, BBC2 is broadcasting a documentary titled "The Trial of Galileo: Days That Shook The World:
An artful reconstruction of the 1633 trial of Galileo, who had the audacity to make the sacrilegious suggestion that the Sun, as opposed to Earth was the centre of the known universe, with all the planets orbiting it, thus outraging the Catholic church."
it's on at 7pm

Duendy...spare us, please, BBC and TV history.

First you said science was a reaction against the authoritarianism of "the church". Now you say both science and religion see a dichtomony between the two fields.

That such as dichtomony exists is an intregral part of the Christian faith. Unfortunately many materialists deny one half of what it means to be human.

Catholics have always taught there is one truth therefore faith cannot contradict science. A few--early Calvinists, a minority of a minority of current evangelicals-- attempt to make science bend to scriptura but not many.

To Christians, Man fell both spiritually and materially. Roger Bacon, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestly, Royal Society founders such as Joseph Glanville and Robert Boyle were millenarians who believed man scientific advances gave a glimpse of man's unfallen state and must be pursued in order to prepare for the final days.

Bacon wrote: ""For man by the fall, fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over the creative things. Both these losses can even in this life be partially repaired. Before by a religion and faith, the latter by the arts and sciences."

In his utopian work "Christianopolis" (c. 1618) the Lutheran preacher Johann Valentin Andrea wrote:

"The arts are encouraged not always because the necessity demands it, but in order to the human soul might have some means by which that little speck of divinity remaining us may shine brightly."

The father of spaceflight, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, was heavily influence by the Russian mystic Nikolai Fedorov.

Fedorov believed man could recovery from the Fall and regain his place with God by advances in science, advances which would colonize the cosmos.

When asked why he chose "Trinity" as the name of the first Atomic Bomb test, Robert Oppenheimer said he was thinking about a poem by John Donne and the restoration of perfection.

So, you criticze a programe even before you've seen it? Not very wise really that is it? you seem entranched in a view and not willing to be open to other views.
Mullenbugh, the GISt is that Church and Science did amalgamate. i explained that--from my researches--they had AGREED for science to fucus on 'material forces' and the church on 'spiritual matters'..."AGREEd". OK

Then you go on and show how Bacon et al were infulenced by the dogma of the church. well SURE they were. you are not arguing against me. i know that
Bacon used feminine terms to describe Nature, and also misgynist terms for what he recommended doing to 'Her' like 'rape' and so on. This is all part and parcel of the patriarchy who see Nature as Feminine and to be subdued. Because as i keep telling you, they have separated Nature from 'spirit'
It is of no consequence you report him and his lackies attempting to right the 'Fall'. the DANGER is the belief to BEGIN with.
This is carring on now. For when science even gives up on the notion of a 'TRANSCENDENT' 'God' they then become totally materialistic and mechanistic, BUT that unresolved dodgy belief systen--coming fdrom centruies of Christian indoctrination, still informs their motives unconsciously. And some scientists also claim to be Christians too