We owe much to science in our daily lives. These benefits did not come cheaply. It's wasn't as simple as developing a "scientific method". Science needed rules to protect against bias and rules on how you draw conclusions from experiments. It needed systems for teaching young scientists and for communicating results of studies. And it needed the help of technology. All of these pieces came together during the Scientific Revolution. For many discussions of the history of science, its development was much more easy. It only needed 4 or 5 great thinkers to show the way. There is a lot of magical thinking in the common view of the history of the science. Nowhere is this more true than when the discussion involves the church and science.
This magical thinking starts with the Scientific Revolution. We are taught about the Scientific Revolution through the works Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton and a small supporting cast. This revolution brought about the wide use of experimentation, the application of mathematics, and a belief in a natural order to the universe. These advances came after of a Dark Age for science that stretched almost 1100 years back to the fall of Rome. [_1_] . The great men of the Scientific Revolution had created our new world out of a dark void. There is much wrong with this account, other than the fact it seems to have been borrowed from the Book of Genesis.
One problem with the popular view of the Scientific Revolution is that the great men of the time were not "ahead of their time". We know what happens to great thinkers and great ideas that are ahead of their time. They are ignored. Gregor Mendel ( see Mendel and Darwin ) and Alfred Wegener (see Wegener and Continental Drift) are only two of many examples of men who were ignored because they were ahead of their time. The reasons that the Scientific Revolution occured in Europe when it did was not only due to the great men of the time but that Europe had been prepared over the centuries for these men. If this is true, the church would have had to be involved, in one way or another.
Some of the advances of the Scientific Revolution were actually advances from the middle ages. The tradition of applying of mathematics to the study of nature began in the fourteenth century with professors from Oxford and Paris. Galileo's own notes as a student reference their work (see Galileo's Battle for the Heaven's). This tradition had spread through Europe by the time Galileo was born. The professors from Oxford even came to be known as "The Calculators" (see The Calculatores). They clearly believed in a natural order to the universe. Why else would the professors from Oxford, Paris and other parts of Europe propose laws that applied to all moving objects. The church rewarded these works, making several of the Oxford and Parisian professors bishops. Recognition of the importance of real physical experiments was one of the real advances of the seventeenth century. Even so, there were examples of well designed and well executed experiments preceding Galileo and Newton ( see Giuseppe Moletti in Galileo's Twin).
Discoveries and proofs often depend on technology. The history of astronomy demonstrates this. Most large optical telescopes built in the last 100 years are Cassegrain reflectors. Three different authors from seventeenth century published this design in the seventeenth century. None were built. Rene Descartes, talked one author out of building a prototype and Newton's ridicule of the design ended the scientific career of another author (see Reflecting on History). The authors (Cassegrain, Mersenne and Cavalieri) were all Roman Catholic priests. The Cassegrain reflector wasn't built in the seventeenth century because the technology wasn't there. The refractors of Galileo and Kepler were built because the technology was there. The artisans around Europe had three centuries of experience producing lenses for spectacles and had developed very sophisticated machines for their production(see Fathers of the Telescope).
There were two more pieces to the puzzle. Science needed a way to communicate discoveries. That's where the scientific journal came in. The Journal of the Royal Society established a model for sharing work between students of nature. This approach had been followed by the Mersenne Circle (see Galileo's Contemporaries) in a less formal way decades before. Another piece of the puzzle was an efficient way for teaching science. That system was already well established, the university. This was one of the greatest achievements of the Middle Ages ( see Medieval Universities Timeline). The medieval university was largely the creation of the church. Many of the characteristics and structures of the modern university can be traced back to twelfth and thirteenth century Europe. Universities are a tremendous tool for spreading new knowledge today, and were so in the Middle Ages.
The Galileo Affair is a favourite in discussions of the church and science. In the Galileo Affair, the Church clashed with Galileo over his cosmological beliefs. This one event is assumed to be more important than the invention of the modern university and the many scientific advances made by clerics (see Galileo's Contemporaries). We hear this from celebrity scientists (Jacob Bronowski, Neil deGrasse Tyson), historians, widely acclaimed documentaries (see Galileo's Battle for the Heavens), and even educational associations. This is where the discussion of church and science departs from science itself. Saying that the Galileo Affair was important doesn't make it so, regardless of how many times it is repeated. Few disciplines in science have less influence on other disciplines than does cosmology. Any statistical analysis of scientific articles (see Eigenfactor.org) will bear this out. Church figures and organizations involved in the Galileo Affair were also involved in the discovery of a remedy for malaria (see the Jesuit's Bark). Ignoring this discovery doesn't change the fact that it had tremendous geopolitical and health effects going forward. Even if we pretend that cosmology is more important than it is, there is the problem of cherry-picking. Why do so few discussions of the Galileo Affair mention his contemporary, Kepler. Is it because Galileo's model was competing with Kepler's? They also miss the fact that Galileo's model didn't work any better at predicting the positions of planets than any of the competing models..and never would. That is how important Kepler's elliptical orbits were. If these discussions miss these facts, what else do they miss? The answer is alot of the science involved with the Galileo Affair (see Galileo's Battle for the Heavens).
The idea that the church is in natural conflict with science needs a second look. A second look with a little more attention to science and a little less magical thinking. These pages are intended to do just that. Modern Science presents the theme that intelligent discussions of church and science must start with intelligent discussions of modern science. Pages on modern scientists such as Gregor Mendel and Alfred Wegener follow on this theme. Galileo's Battle for the Heavens presents several of the "missing bits" from most discussions of the Galileo Affair. Finally, The Real da Vinci Code might explain how so much magical thinking about the church and science has survived so long. Early historians of science had a strong anti-church and anti-religious bias and were able to censor historians whose work didn't fit with that bias. Many other pages deal with specific historical events (see Site Map).