Sticks and Stones For the First Episode of Cosmos

The internet has been alive with comments about the new version of Cosmos, hosted by Neil De Grasse Tyson and not all of it has been positive.  At issue, it seems, is the very weird detour that the series made in profiling the life of monk Giordano Bruno, who, according to the show, was burned at the stake for his non-canonical views on astronomy.  As several have pointed out, this is a stretch at best and a lie at worst.  As Becky Ferreira put it:

But the truth is that Bruno's scientific theories weren't what got him killed. Sure, his refusal to recant his belief in a plurality of worlds contributed to his sentence. But it's important to note that the Catholic Church didn't even have an official position on the heliocentric universe in 1600, and support for it was not considered heresy during Bruno's trial.

On top of that, his support for Copernican cosmology was the least heretical position he propagated. His opinions on theology were far more pyrotechnic. For example, Bruno had the balls to suggest that Satan was destined to be saved and redeemed by God. He didn't think Jesus was the son of God, but rather “an unusually skilled magician.” He even publicly disputed Mary's virginity. The Church could let astronomical theories slide, but calling the Mother of God out on her sex life? There's no doubt that these were the ideas that landed Bruno on the stake.

Peter Hess writes:

But Cosmos makes Bruno out to be a martyr who died heroically in the defense of early modern science, and this is a role he certainly did not play. Jole Shackleford details this nicely in his exploration of the myth that "Giordano Bruno was the First Martyr of Modern Science" in Ron Numbers' edited volume Galileo Goes to Jail and other Myths about Science and Religion (2009). 

The question being raised is why, for a series that is an attempt to deliver the best modern science to the public, would they take an obscure monk and mangle his history only for the sake of showing how misguided and vile the medieval Catholic church was?  Cosmos writer Steven Sotor argues that it was Bruno's ideas of the cosmos that were the important aspect of the piece.  If this is so, however, why drag the Catholic church  into the story at all?  Why not just focus on what Bruno's ideas were?  Why camouflage the fact that his ideas were rejected by other astronomers of the day and elevate him to the status of martyr for science when, in fact, he was burned for his religious ideas?  I doubt anyone is going to give the Catholic church a pass for how they treated him, but the idea that he was a brilliant scientist of his day and the church was “anti-science.” doesn't hold up here.

Also, without a disclaimer of sorts, it also smacks of holding the church accountable for actions that it took hundreds of years ago, actions that are now universally held as contemptible and myopic.  Nothing is said of how the church has grown in its acceptance and willingness to contribute to modern science.  Its a cheap shot and it mars the otherwise noble aspirations of a show that should be devoted to science. 

Matthew Blackston on BioLogos

My friend Matthew Blackston, who is a physicist here at ORNL has a post on BioLogos about cosmology, theology and God's use of time. Stop by and read it. It is very good.

Josh Rosenau Has Fun With Ray Comfort

Josh Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas has this to say about Ray Comfort, the man responsible for the million book giveaway of the altered version of On the Origin of Species (a title that both Comfort and Kirk Cameron got wrong on their version and didn't seem to notice). Josh writes:

It's honestly hard to know what to make of Ray Comfort. First he says bananas are proof of intelligent design because of how well they fit in your hand. Then he retracts the claim, accepting that the domestic banana is, in fact, a product of extensive artificial selection. Then he backs off and insists "There isn’t any evidence that the banana has changed its shape in the last 2,000 years."

As Rosenau points out, Ray Comfort has a blog called AtheistCentral and, when asked whether the earth was in the center of the universe, he had this to say:

The Bible says that the earth is immovable. It cannot be moved. So now is your chance to prove your point. Run outside and move the earth. Perhaps you and your friends could jump on it, or find a rocky outcrop and push it together.

Maybe after that little experiment you will concede that the earth is immovable. So is Scripture. You can push, twist, pull, and jump on different verses, but the Word of God isn’t going to move. It is a rock. It cannot be broken (see John 10:35). It will judge you on the last Day (see John 12:48). You only twist it to your own destruction (see 2 Peter 3:16).

So if I go out and jump up and down on the ground and don't get it to move, it means the earth is fixed in the heavens and doesn't move? I see his astronomy and physics education is every bit as good as his biology education. More seriously, if the earth does move, what does that say about scripture? Well, for most of us, not a dang thing. I wonder what it means for Ray Comfort?

----------------
Now playing: Todd Rundgren - Parallel Lines
via FoxyTunes