[kdeberk]

Some of the first few comments are from evolution-denialists and climate-gaters. However, I have to agree with the point that the article places the church in a bad daylight for the first item. Galileo wasn't refused because what he said was against scripture (was it even?). The main argument from the church was that his theory was methodologically flawed.

First there was no good reason to assume that telescopes provided a good image of distant bodies, so observations made using them had no credibility and could thus not be counted as 'evidence' as the article states. Secondly, if the earth moved and we with it, why did an object that was dropped from a tower, land at the bottom of that tower and not a good distant away from it? Assuming that the earth and the tower moved with it, but not the object since it was touching the earth nor the tower.

Galileo had a lot of explaining to do: the observations he made simply could not be placed in the prevalent scientific model. The easy way out is was to refute the evidence because it did not fit, the long way out was to rebuild the model.

[pohl]

The main argument from the church was that his theory was methodologically flawed.

True, but this is from an organization who accepts appealing to the revealed devine word as a methodology.

[jacquesm]

Dogma and religion go hand-in-hand, it's disturbing that this is still the case today.

For instance, the roman catholic churches stand on on condoms is absolutely irresponsible and causes a lot of trouble for a lot of people every year.

The only thing they'd have to do is to be able to admit they were wrong all along, wipe some of that dogmatic slate clean, but that's too high a price to pay for them, because it will lead people to wonder about what else they might be wrong about.

[tptacek]

I'm pretty sure that's not why the Catholic church isn't going to promote condoms, Jacques. In the meantime: don't go to the Pope for medical advice. He's not a doctor.

[jacquesm]

It's not that he's not promoting them, he's actively condemning their use, besides that, there are large numbers of people that will follow his advice against the advice of their doctor.

The pope should not be handing out medical advice precisely because he is not a doctor, but that does not seem to stop him.

Real damage is done by this dogmatic stance.

[tptacek]

It was dumb of me to take the bait, and now I regret doing so. Sorry.

[jacquesm]

> it was dumb of me to take the bait, and now I regret doing so. Sorry.

An insult in an apology :)

Joke for you: Judge: John, what did you say? John: I said he was an asshole. Judge: Apologize for that! John: Ok. "George, I'm sorry you're an asshole".

It wasn't meant as bait, sorry you interpreted it as such. It's just that the way the church has dealt with scientific stuff (and medicine is science too) is really painful and problematic to me.

Lives are at stake here, millions of them, especially in Africa and one word from one guy could change this, and he chooses not to speak it.

[kdeberk]

People don't go for the pope for medical advice, they go for spiritual advice.