In 1633, Galileo was condemned by the Church for biblical and scientific reasons. Subsequently, science gradually proved that Galileo’s theory was correct.
 
I reconsidered the ultimate phase of the trial of the astronomer: the contradiction of his new thesis with regard to the biblical verses sustained by the Church.
 
In my French book “Entre Galilée et l’Église : la Bible” (Between Galileo and the Church, the Bible…) I analyse the conflicting verses. And I demonstrate, through a comprehensive semantic study, that in the Hebrew and Greek Texts, the sun does not turn around the Earth, contrary to what the versions assert. I conclude that if the translations of the Bible had been faithful to the original Texts, Galileo would not have been condemned for “having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.”
 
As a result of his study, I clarify the many debates held through the centuries and endeavour to align the translations of the Bible with their original Texts and to officially rehabilitate Galileo.

Joël Col

Not quite. It would be more like Hitler putting up a statue to honor the Jews

# 17 Greg Allen said,
You guys act like Vatian just finally accepted Galileo!

A did a quick check on Google — the ban was lifted on his theories in 1718. They erected a monument to honor him in 1737.

The *ban* may have been lifted on this theories in 1718, but they did not *accept* his theory that the Earth was not stationary until 1992 (at least officially).

I expanded on this curious happening here:
http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com/2008/03/galileo-story-in-times-references-ultra.html

But actually: you cannot apply scientific methods to religion because religion is utterly un-scientific. Science relies on knowledge, religion defies it.

pj

Hi there, just wanted to point out that, even if that’s the reigning opinion (science beeing always just “objective”), folks like Thomas Kuhn think differently. He basically states that once on a “paradigm” you don’t judge the model you’re on, until too many inconsistencies show up. He takes into account some more sociological aspects of the scientific comunity and, ultimately reasons that, because from inside of a paradigm you cannot judge another one (there’s no basic assumtions in common), the choice between the two is an irrational one.

Please note, before the bashing begins, that I’m deeply religious (commited to the church of FSM). No, seriously, it’s not about science or religion beeing better than the other. But not seeing the limitations of science (or should I say, of scientists, actually) seems a little dangerous to me.

Wrong there Greg. It’s the scientific community that has historically thoroughly tested any claims and accepted resultant proof, while the theologic community has shunned all contrary claims and thoroughly opposed and denied supporting evidence. It’s understandable, because they have everything to lose and wont easily give up the lie that validates them, while a scientist must simply accept the change as an improvement and a step forward.

“If some currently accepted scientific theory was proven wrong now, you can bet the (supposedly) “objective” scientific community would oppose it strictly for emotional reasons.”

Really? C’mon Greg. You sound like you don’t understand the most basic concepts of science.

You guys act like Vatian just finally accepted Galileo!

A did a quick check on Google — the ban was lifted on his theories in 1718. They erected a monument to honor him in 1737.

http://tinyurl.com/7e6yk

I’m fine with you criticizing the Catholics. (I do it myself.) But, c’mon, at least try to be intellectually honest about it.

The pope is not phallible!

pj

And you just made THAT up.

For Pete’s sake! Everything humans do is “made up.”

I think it is great that the Catholics are honoring Galileo. So what if they opposed him back then? The status quo almost always opposes change.

If some currently accepted scientific theory was proven wrong now, you can bet the (supposedly) “objective” scientific community would oppose it strictly for emotional reasons.