Originally Posted by Phaedrus 
For the umpteen billionth time, Kyle, the "flat earth" thing was a practical joke, dreamed up in the 18th Century, which was later turned into a political club to beat the opposition with. The earth was known to be round, and a flat earth was NEVER sanctioned by the Catholic Church.
You're right. I think I pulled that one out after looking at Genesis too much earlier in the thread (which on a literal reading does reflect a flat-earth cosmology). It wasn't really ever a legitimate church position though.
Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Firmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The heliocentric model was never rejected by the Church. What the Church did, was point out the blatantly obvious flaws in early heliocentrism and told the scientists to work on it some more. One idiot actually refused, and decided to personally attack the church heierarchy. This fine individual was burned at the stake, not for heliocentrism, but for jumping the chain of command and disobeying instructions, much like any other secular organization of the day would've reacted to a direct challenge.
And, obtw, that early model of heliocentrism WAS WRONG!!!!! After working on it some more, the theory was perfected, and later embraced by the church.
Um, so was the geocentric theory they were using...
My favorite source (namely Wikipedia) doesn't have much in the way of good citations on this one. The following is from a student article that is friendly to your position.
Does the history of the so-called Copernican Revolution show that science and religion are antithetical and incompatible ways of looking at the world? Originally Posted by The Above Website The Congregation of the Index, was formed in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I, and had by this time fallen into the hands of the Inquisition who were charged with drawing up a complete list of forbidden books. In 1616, it put De Revolutionibus on the Index subject to revision and also added Kepler’s New Astronomy, Epitome of Copernican Astronomy and World Harmony. In 1633, Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the two Chief Systems of the world was also added, and after already having been warned, Galileo was found guilty of heresy by the inquisition and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life in Florence. After a relatively inactive period by the Church in curbing anti-Catholic astronomy, now they were not standing for any more. The initial theories proposed by Copernicus were pushed aside by the Church for purely that reason – they were only mathematical theories. Kepler’s laws of physics, which helped Copernicus’ theories fit in with the astronomical observations, added to the aggravation of the Church. All it took was Galileo to tip the balance with the use of the telescope that now proved: the existence of multiple centres of motion in the universe thanks to the satellites of Jupiter, and imperfections in the cosmos such as sunspots. For this reason among many, Dialogue concerning the two Chief Systems of the world was not taken off the Index until 1824. Indeed, it wasn’t until Newton published his Principia Mathematica in 1687, that the scientific approach to the cosmos became more popular in study, and in belief, than the religious approach.
Originally Posted by Phaedrus Originally Posted by Kyle Originally Posted by Phaedrus Oh, please do tell which ideas have been rejected and/or corrupted due to religion.
The a recent example is the faith-based rejection of evolution and the teaching of creationism in schools. The newest trend is the intelligent design movement, with regards to both biology and physics/astronomy.
None of these are seriously repressed by the church. Unless questioning certain obvious flaws which scientists refuse to examine constitutes repression? Like, how do complex organisms result from simple organisms, "by accident?"
I'm going to nitpick a bit, but your original question was which ideas have been rejected and/or corrupted, not seriously repressed. The church now doesn't have sufficient power to "repress" an idea, so I'd agree with you there. Religious thought still rejects and corrupts these things though.
Your characterization of the intelligent design is also very much incorrect. It doesn't "[question] certain obvious flaws which scientists refuse to examine." Science in general is progressing towards answers where they are available. Instead, intelligent design seizes upon yet unexplained phenomena and then injects a hypothesis of a designer to explain them. The problem is that hypothesis does not produce any useful or testable predictions, cannot be refuted through testing, multiplies entities beyond necessity, and is motivated by preexisting religious biases. These are the hallmarks of a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. I have no problem with discussing it in such a context, it has been around for at least hundreds, if not thousands of years. But, many people are highly motivated to get ID into science classrooms, again due to purely religious considerations. Sounds like the corruption of science to me.
Originally Posted by Phaedrus Double standard? Government and scientists can screw up, and in fact can openly persecute people with different beliefs, but the only drum you have to beat is the "Anti-Religious Bigotry" one....
The fact that three entities all have a property doesn't change the fact that one of them has that property. Its just not highly relevant to the issue of religion's impact.
