![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Yankyawc,
Jguiltinan1. Peer reviewers:
Saxonnn.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Trdphan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 July 2020 and 31 August 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Rishelton. Peer reviewers:
Swalker2786.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the Catholic Church have a LONG history. And that history includes scientific studies. But really... the Church also has a LONG history of Inquisition, sanctioned murders, and enforced silence of scientific views that were termed 'heresy, vile, and filthy'. This article does a lot 'hand waving'. What we really meant, the Church says, was that the these people were right, but neglected to take into account many legalistic, pedantic, and other non-negotiable views... until they too were over turned by scientific studies. Really? This article, while mainly true in words, is not true in spirit (Galileo is touted as Catholic Scientist). Does Wikipedia really need an article on the Catholics and Science? How about an article on Islamists and Women's Rights? Please turn your flame throwers, insults, and phasers to 'less than stun' when replying to this Catholic. Calixte 03:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Calixte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calixte ( talk • contribs)
I come to this article to learn about the people whom killed by vatican as today is the remembrance day of Bruno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.121.187 ( talk) 23:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Emotional and irrelevant comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamiraR123 ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I just read this statement in the article
"Catholic schools do not teach theistic evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the facts of evolution and the scientific theory of its mechanisms. This is essentially the same biological curriculum taught in public schools and secular universities." (emph mine)
My personal experience and just plain common sense tell me that indeed such schools do teach a form of theistic evolution: nontheistic forms of Darwinism are exactly what the Church has been railing against for decades. I would be bold and just remove the highlighted words, but then the rest of the paragraph is quite poorly written. Comments? Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 17:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Ummm... I went to catholic schools all my life, from grade school, to high school, and the science curriculum did not include any "theistic" anything. Not in biology, nor in math, nor in chemistry, physics, math... I took all those and went on to study chemical engineering at a public university. There were religion classes in catholic school, there were science classes. In science there was not a single mention of God or anything "religious", not even when a priest gave the class... If you guys are going to talk about what curriculum is being used on catholic institutions on Wikipedia you guys should get samples of those curricula and quote from them, I guess... --
186.32.206.13 (
talk)
06:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I know there wasn't one before, but it is ridiculous to start this "Thomas E. Woods, Jr. asserts...." especially when Woods is hardly a figure to conjure with. Johnbod ( talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I was going to insert a section on Dignitas Personae and then decided to hold back because this topic gets away from "pure science" and into the morality and ethics of applications of science and technology. Should bioethics and other science-related ethical issues be included in this article or somewhere else? -- Richard S ( talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This , however, leaves something to be desired. First of all, it is unsourced and so it sounds like OR. Also, it seems to be a bit of partisan sniping. Is it really crucual to the topic? -- Richard S ( talk) 20:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This Section lacks relevance to the topic at hand. There are no links provided between Mendel and the Catholic Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.129.41 ( talk) 21:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Should the introduction really be about an assertion by Thomas E. Woods, Jr? Also, what is with the statement that follows in the second paragraph? Most research has been conducted in Catholic universities? That doesn't seem particularly true, unless, maybe, it was specifically historically, and even then.... most research? What? I'm assuming this part was just phrased badly.
I just can't see why Woods would even be notable enough to warrant that. Half of the section about his reception in academia on his article on here is about the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which is far from being a mainstream institution. 68.227.169.133 ( talk) 23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to say that I think the intro should be more clear in the stances of the Church today. I think that it should be clear in stating that the Church fully supports the discoveries and theories of science, as it believes that all can be seen to be the work of God. Maybe even throw in a mention of how the Church accepts the Big Bang Theory as well as evolution. I feel that too many people instantly assume Catholics are the 'craziest' of Christians, and having the Church's stance on science explained in a clear and concise sentence in the introduction would help alleviate these public misunderstandings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.177.40 ( talk) 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is so-so. The true truth is that the Catholic Church have both stimulated science and made some very grave maldecisions undermining its own authority, most notably the Bruno and Galileo affairs. The article contains most of this, but the intro is misleading: the introduction of cathedral schools and academia was due to the need of priestly education – it was inspired by the similar islamic educational institutes – but the intro gives the impression that the Catholic Church brought forth almost all science, which is a deeply anachronistical misinterpretation, most science emerges today on secular universities. The article needs however less fixing than the first ridiculous impression: a WP:NPOV discourse explaining the development, clashes and science promotions from RCC to modern science. A few impressive astronomy examples are Piazzi, Lacaille and Angelo Secchi. A little but influential minority in astronomy science. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I just came across the announcement [1] and came to wikipedia to see what the history of the church was on environmental issues. I also recall something about the "10 commandments of the environment" or some such a few years back. [2] -- Jake ( talk) 02:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Murray
He was catholic.
-- Earthbatslast ( talk) 04:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Today a section I removed was restored. First, Christianity did not bring "literacy" to Germanic Europe. The Germanic peoples had an indigenous alphabets of their own: the runic alphabets. In some cases (for example, the Bryggen inscriptions) they were used very extensively for everyday writing. Elsewhere it's unclear as the vast majority of the texts have since biodegraded. Additionally, Cahill's terrible How the Irish Saved Civilization is by no means an acceptable source. We can and should discuss how the church decided to retain some texts, but attempting to spin Christianization as having "saved civilization" while everyone else out there was just mucking around in some kind of "darkness" of stupidity—even just waiting to get Christianized—won't get us any closer to a decent article. In reality things were a little more complicated. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits have dealt with the knowledge of Greek in the Early Middle Ages. I thought it might be useful to provide the comments of Max Laistner. (They are admittedly somewhat dated, but Laistner's point seems generally sound):
In the light of Laistner's comments, I'd be cautious about attributing knowledge of Greek to early medieval scholars. SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 15:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Catholic Church and science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The Church supported science when it was in the church's favor.
Even a totally non controversial Professor like Laura Bassi (1711-1778) (" the woman that understood Newton") was restricted from carrying out her work by the church, that supported the conservative professors.
The only time the church really has supported science objectively was when Gallileo almost falling asleep in the church noted the synchronous swinging of chandeliers and incense containers and concluded that the oscillation was independent of the mass of the objects.
To answer the question above: Yes it is most likely the Vatican PR group. Who else would write a self biography for the church?
Burningbrand ( talk) 11:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Roman Catholicism and science →
Catholic Church and science – Per
WP:CONSISTENCY with
Catholic Church and art,
Catholic Church, etc.
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
16:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
We are told that "Galileo was shown the implements of torture to instill fear in him". The only source for this is the word of Jacob Bronowski. I want better proof than the word of Jacob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.122.84 ( talk) 13:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to add a section about these two and their contributions while in China — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trdphan ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The section on Modern astronomers began with a series of edits about the director of the Vatican Observatory, Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ. Although the mention of Consolmagno seemed appropriate at the time, the breadth of the section's title left the way open for a discussion of any modern astronomer, whatever their connection to the Catholic Church. That proliferation has now begun with the addition of another astronomer who is on the board of an organization of Catholic sciences. I suggest deleting this section in order to prevent an unproductive creep of the article's content. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 19:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The section entitled "Roman Inquisition" sounds as though it has been translated from Italian or the like. I am not sure that it was written by an actual Italian.
There seems to be a very strong bias abd an attempt to sell a point of view vs being neutral 62.152.112.242 ( talk) 18:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Yankyawc,
Jguiltinan1. Peer reviewers:
Saxonnn.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Trdphan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 July 2020 and 31 August 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Rishelton. Peer reviewers:
Swalker2786.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the Catholic Church have a LONG history. And that history includes scientific studies. But really... the Church also has a LONG history of Inquisition, sanctioned murders, and enforced silence of scientific views that were termed 'heresy, vile, and filthy'. This article does a lot 'hand waving'. What we really meant, the Church says, was that the these people were right, but neglected to take into account many legalistic, pedantic, and other non-negotiable views... until they too were over turned by scientific studies. Really? This article, while mainly true in words, is not true in spirit (Galileo is touted as Catholic Scientist). Does Wikipedia really need an article on the Catholics and Science? How about an article on Islamists and Women's Rights? Please turn your flame throwers, insults, and phasers to 'less than stun' when replying to this Catholic. Calixte 03:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Calixte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calixte ( talk • contribs)
I come to this article to learn about the people whom killed by vatican as today is the remembrance day of Bruno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.121.187 ( talk) 23:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Emotional and irrelevant comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamiraR123 ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I just read this statement in the article
"Catholic schools do not teach theistic evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the facts of evolution and the scientific theory of its mechanisms. This is essentially the same biological curriculum taught in public schools and secular universities." (emph mine)
My personal experience and just plain common sense tell me that indeed such schools do teach a form of theistic evolution: nontheistic forms of Darwinism are exactly what the Church has been railing against for decades. I would be bold and just remove the highlighted words, but then the rest of the paragraph is quite poorly written. Comments? Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 17:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Ummm... I went to catholic schools all my life, from grade school, to high school, and the science curriculum did not include any "theistic" anything. Not in biology, nor in math, nor in chemistry, physics, math... I took all those and went on to study chemical engineering at a public university. There were religion classes in catholic school, there were science classes. In science there was not a single mention of God or anything "religious", not even when a priest gave the class... If you guys are going to talk about what curriculum is being used on catholic institutions on Wikipedia you guys should get samples of those curricula and quote from them, I guess... --
186.32.206.13 (
talk)
06:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I know there wasn't one before, but it is ridiculous to start this "Thomas E. Woods, Jr. asserts...." especially when Woods is hardly a figure to conjure with. Johnbod ( talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I was going to insert a section on Dignitas Personae and then decided to hold back because this topic gets away from "pure science" and into the morality and ethics of applications of science and technology. Should bioethics and other science-related ethical issues be included in this article or somewhere else? -- Richard S ( talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This , however, leaves something to be desired. First of all, it is unsourced and so it sounds like OR. Also, it seems to be a bit of partisan sniping. Is it really crucual to the topic? -- Richard S ( talk) 20:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This Section lacks relevance to the topic at hand. There are no links provided between Mendel and the Catholic Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.129.41 ( talk) 21:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Should the introduction really be about an assertion by Thomas E. Woods, Jr? Also, what is with the statement that follows in the second paragraph? Most research has been conducted in Catholic universities? That doesn't seem particularly true, unless, maybe, it was specifically historically, and even then.... most research? What? I'm assuming this part was just phrased badly.
I just can't see why Woods would even be notable enough to warrant that. Half of the section about his reception in academia on his article on here is about the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which is far from being a mainstream institution. 68.227.169.133 ( talk) 23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to say that I think the intro should be more clear in the stances of the Church today. I think that it should be clear in stating that the Church fully supports the discoveries and theories of science, as it believes that all can be seen to be the work of God. Maybe even throw in a mention of how the Church accepts the Big Bang Theory as well as evolution. I feel that too many people instantly assume Catholics are the 'craziest' of Christians, and having the Church's stance on science explained in a clear and concise sentence in the introduction would help alleviate these public misunderstandings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.177.40 ( talk) 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is so-so. The true truth is that the Catholic Church have both stimulated science and made some very grave maldecisions undermining its own authority, most notably the Bruno and Galileo affairs. The article contains most of this, but the intro is misleading: the introduction of cathedral schools and academia was due to the need of priestly education – it was inspired by the similar islamic educational institutes – but the intro gives the impression that the Catholic Church brought forth almost all science, which is a deeply anachronistical misinterpretation, most science emerges today on secular universities. The article needs however less fixing than the first ridiculous impression: a WP:NPOV discourse explaining the development, clashes and science promotions from RCC to modern science. A few impressive astronomy examples are Piazzi, Lacaille and Angelo Secchi. A little but influential minority in astronomy science. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I just came across the announcement [1] and came to wikipedia to see what the history of the church was on environmental issues. I also recall something about the "10 commandments of the environment" or some such a few years back. [2] -- Jake ( talk) 02:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Murray
He was catholic.
-- Earthbatslast ( talk) 04:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Today a section I removed was restored. First, Christianity did not bring "literacy" to Germanic Europe. The Germanic peoples had an indigenous alphabets of their own: the runic alphabets. In some cases (for example, the Bryggen inscriptions) they were used very extensively for everyday writing. Elsewhere it's unclear as the vast majority of the texts have since biodegraded. Additionally, Cahill's terrible How the Irish Saved Civilization is by no means an acceptable source. We can and should discuss how the church decided to retain some texts, but attempting to spin Christianization as having "saved civilization" while everyone else out there was just mucking around in some kind of "darkness" of stupidity—even just waiting to get Christianized—won't get us any closer to a decent article. In reality things were a little more complicated. :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits have dealt with the knowledge of Greek in the Early Middle Ages. I thought it might be useful to provide the comments of Max Laistner. (They are admittedly somewhat dated, but Laistner's point seems generally sound):
In the light of Laistner's comments, I'd be cautious about attributing knowledge of Greek to early medieval scholars. SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 15:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Catholic Church and science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The Church supported science when it was in the church's favor.
Even a totally non controversial Professor like Laura Bassi (1711-1778) (" the woman that understood Newton") was restricted from carrying out her work by the church, that supported the conservative professors.
The only time the church really has supported science objectively was when Gallileo almost falling asleep in the church noted the synchronous swinging of chandeliers and incense containers and concluded that the oscillation was independent of the mass of the objects.
To answer the question above: Yes it is most likely the Vatican PR group. Who else would write a self biography for the church?
Burningbrand ( talk) 11:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Roman Catholicism and science →
Catholic Church and science – Per
WP:CONSISTENCY with
Catholic Church and art,
Catholic Church, etc.
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
16:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
We are told that "Galileo was shown the implements of torture to instill fear in him". The only source for this is the word of Jacob Bronowski. I want better proof than the word of Jacob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.122.84 ( talk) 13:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to add a section about these two and their contributions while in China — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trdphan ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The section on Modern astronomers began with a series of edits about the director of the Vatican Observatory, Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ. Although the mention of Consolmagno seemed appropriate at the time, the breadth of the section's title left the way open for a discussion of any modern astronomer, whatever their connection to the Catholic Church. That proliferation has now begun with the addition of another astronomer who is on the board of an organization of Catholic sciences. I suggest deleting this section in order to prevent an unproductive creep of the article's content. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 19:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The section entitled "Roman Inquisition" sounds as though it has been translated from Italian or the like. I am not sure that it was written by an actual Italian.
There seems to be a very strong bias abd an attempt to sell a point of view vs being neutral 62.152.112.242 ( talk) 18:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)