tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9999692.post113926718533207287..comments2023-10-16T02:46:52.844-07:00Comments on palosverdesblog: OriginsBill Lamahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02092428206818183253noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9999692.post-1139600258086195142006-02-10T11:37:00.000-08:002006-02-10T11:37:00.000-08:00Tex,Thank you for the feedback, and sorry for the ...Tex,<BR/>Thank you for the feedback, and sorry for the confusion. I said that "it pays to get the centuries right" then immediately blow it by writing 1600 instead of 16th century. I've fixed it in the post. Mea culpa.<BR/><BR/>I was in fact referring to your roster of Scientific Revolutionaries from Copernicus to Galileo and trying to make the point that the real scientific revolution began two centuries before during the so-called "Dark Ages." <BR/><BR/>Your final point pitting the Church vs. science is exactly what I was intending to refute. I'll take it up again in a near future post.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again,<BR/>BillBill Lamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02092428206818183253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9999692.post-1139525236162291792006-02-09T14:47:00.000-08:002006-02-09T14:47:00.000-08:00If I told you that a tornado hit a junkyard, and t...If I told you that a tornado hit a junkyard, and the random movement of objects had created a working car, you would not believe me. Yet, many people seem to be able to accept the idea that our world was created by an accident. Fascinating........... <BR/> <BR/>GeneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9999692.post-1139298733119682112006-02-06T23:52:00.000-08:002006-02-06T23:52:00.000-08:00BillI'm not sure where to start.I agree that it do...Bill<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure where to start.<BR/><BR/>I agree that it does pay to get the centuries straight, but I think you are confused between the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment<BR/><BR/>The Renaissance started in Italy in the 14th century (not 1600). A few of the key figures in the early Renaissance were:<BR/><BR/>Dante (1265-1321)<BR/>Petrarch (1304-1374)<BR/>Boccaccio (1313-1375)<BR/><BR/>and in the "High" Renaissance:<BR/><BR/>Copernicus (1473-1543)<BR/>Machiavelli (1469-1527)<BR/>Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)<BR/>Erasmus (1466-1536)<BR/>Rabelais (1495-1553)<BR/>Michaelangelo (1475-1564)<BR/>Cervantes (1547-1616)<BR/>Galileo (1564-1642)<BR/><BR/>The main developments in thinking at this time were an increased belief in the individual, increased belief in the power of education, a new impetus in the humanities, mathematics and science (including the science of war), and art. There was a more general desire to increase the bounds of knowledge, a growth in skepticism and free-thinking, and a renewed interest in and translation of Greek ideas. <BR/><BR/>The Catholic Church, which had its own problems to deal with (thanks to Martin Luther and others) didn't like a lot of this, especially some of the new science. Copernicus was unable to publish his work during his lifetime and Galileo spent many years under house arrest, fearing the Inquisition. They were the Renaissance Darwins.<BR/><BR/>These people and others triumphed in spite of the influence of the Church, not because of it.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what the Enlightenment figures have to do with all this. Voltaire was a great playwright and novelist, but he was not an original thinker (although I think he was a believer in a form of Intelligent Design). Incidentally, his dates were 1694-1778 (Copernicus, Galileo and even Isaac Newton were all dead by the time Voltaire was writing.) Ditto Rousseau. The new science was well under way by the time these people were active.<BR/><BR/>Was the possibilty of science derived from Medieval Theology? I don't know, but I do know the Church worked very hard to stop it from evolving.<BR/><BR/>TexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com