{"id":396,"date":"2011-07-29T18:04:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-29T18:04:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html"},"modified":"2017-05-30T16:01:08","modified_gmt":"2017-05-30T20:01:08","slug":"typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html","title":{"rendered":"“Science vs. Catholicism” Myths Refuted"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
Original title: \u00a0\u201cTypical \u2018Science vs. Catholicism\u2019 Criticisms (and Myths) from an Agnostic Scientist Refuted\u201d<\/strong><\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
(7-29-11)<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/div>\n
\"Lavoisier2\"<\/a>
\n<\/b><\/div>\n
Lavoisier: line engraving by Louis Jean Desire Delaistre, after a design by Julien Leopold Boilly<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Antoine Lavoisier: the Father of Chemistry (1743-1794) was the real<\/i> \u201cmartyr for science\u201d: not Galileo or the rank heretic Bruno. Galileo was sentenced to comfortable house arrest by a Catholic tribunal. Lavoisier was not nearly so lucky: he got his head cut off by the \u201cenlightened\u201d atheist French revolutionaries (five other scientists were killed as well). Why, then, do we never hear about that<\/i>?<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
* * * * *<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

I have received permission to post the words (but not the name) of an agnostic scientist who is a friend of a friend of mine.\u00a0 He wrote:<\/p>\n

Please do not post with my name. I did not put any time into this, and was not intending to get into a scholarly debate with your friend. So would not want it to be considered as my \u201cscholarly work\u201d since it is not my area and I do not have time to read his book. Your friend obviously has a lot more time for this than I do. I am a scientist, not a philosopher of science (even though I have a doctor of philosophy). Rather than debate me, he should be debating someone who does research in this area. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

He can post [my words]<\/span> if he wants without a name, but in my view he should not present me as some expert on the philosophy or history of science. I\u2019m not. I\u2019m a scientist with some opinions. If he is a scholar on the subject and wants scholarly debate, he should be engaging someone like Richard Dawkins.<\/span><\/p>\n

Our mutual friend sent me a link to a video forwarded by the scientist, called Science Saved My Soul<\/a>. That about summed up the situation for me, before I saw any particular objections. This is the error known as \u201cscientism.\u201d Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman described it as follows:<\/p>\n

I am not denying, I am granting, I am assuming, that there is reason and truth in the \u201cleading ideas,\u201d as they are called, and \u201clarge views\u201d of scientific men; I only say that, though they speak truth, they do not speak the whole truth; that they speak a narrow truth, and think it a broad truth; that their deductions must be compared with other truths, which are acknowledged to be truths, in order to verify, complete, and correct them. They say what is true, exceptis excipiendis<\/i>; what is true, but requires guarding; true, but must not be ridden too hard, or made what is called a hobby<\/i>; true, but not the measure of all things; true, but if thus inordinately, extravagantly, ruinously carried out, in spite of other sciences, in spite of Theology, sure to become but a great bubble, and to burst.<\/p>\n

(The Idea of a University<\/i><\/a>, Part I, Discourse 4: \u201cBearing of Other Branches of Knowledge on Theology,\u201d<\/a> 1852)<\/p>\n

They scorn any process of inquiry not founded on experiment; the Mathematics indeed they endure, because that science deals with ideas, not with facts, and leads to conclusions hypothetical rather than real; \u201cMetaphysics\u201d they even use as a by-word of reproach; and Ethics they admit only on condition that it gives up conscience as its scientific ground, and bases itself on tangible utility: but as to Theology, they cannot deal with it, they cannot master it, and so they simply outlaw it and ignore it.<\/p>\n

(The Idea of a University<\/i><\/a>, Part I, Discourse 9: \u201cDuties of the Church Towards Knowledge,\u201d<\/a> 1852)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But science is not possible without theistic premises. Hence, I sent our scientist friend my book (as a PDF): Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies?<\/i> <\/a>I also recommended many related articles on my Philosophy, Science, and Christianity and Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism web pages. This led to the following reply (a few typos corrected):<\/p>\n

So I\u2019ve skimmed. I get the message that science is strongly rooted in religion. I don\u2019t argue this at all. In the past, everything was done in the church, it\u2019s where education and research was carried out. Plus everyone at least pretended to be christian for fear of being burned at the stake or flogged. But history is full of examples where science progressed \u201cdespite\u201d religion. Recall the Dark Ages for example. Galileo was sentenced to life in prison for establishing the truth using the scientific method. The Catholic church stood behind the biggest failed hypothesis of all time for 13 centuries. Ptolemy\u2019s view of the solar system established in the 1st century AD had the Earth at the center of the solar system. The church refused to question this because it was in total agreement with the bible which said the Earth was stationary (which of course is incorrect). 13 centuries later Copernicus finally challenged this theory and put the sun at the center and and the Earth orbiting the sun. Several of Coperinicus\u2019 supporters were burned at the stake by the Catholic church (Copernicus died of natural causes before he himself could be burned at the stake) for getting behind what was eventually shown to be absolutely correct. So yeah, religion helped get science going, but has been holding it back.<\/div>\n

I responded in turn: not in extreme depth or supreme, but merely with a \u201cfired-off\u201d reply (as I was busy today doing other things) [additional material added presently in brackets]:<\/p>\n

* * *<\/div>\n

Obviously, your friend hasn\u2019t read my book yet.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve never heard of Copernicus\u2019 supporters being burned at the stake. I demand (please convey to him) to see documentation of this. I don\u2019t believe it.<\/p>\n

[Possibly, our friend is referring to Giordano Bruno<\/a> (1548-1600), but the problem is that he was not condemned primarily, or even remotely (if at all), for heliocentrism<\/i>, but rather, for a host of heresies, including\u00a0 pantheism (all is God), erroneous opinions about the Trinity, Christ\u2019s divinity, and His incarnation, denial of transubstantiation, the perpetual virginity of Mary, creation, and the last judgment, and belief in metempsychosis<\/a> and in the transmigration<\/a> of the human soul into non-humans, along with various forms of magic and divination. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/i> (\u201cNicolaus Copernicus\u201d<\/a>) concurs:<\/p>\n

Pope Clement VII (r. 1523\u20131534) had reacted favorably to a talk about Copernicus\u2019s theories, rewarding the speaker with a rare manuscript. There is no indication of how Pope Paul III, to whom On the Revolutions<\/i> was dedicated reacted; however, a trusted advisor, Bartolomeo Spina of Pisa (1474\u20131546) intended to condemn it but fell ill and died before his plan was carried out (see Rosen, 1975). Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Giordano Bruno (1548\u20131600) was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology, and this is clearly shown in Finocchiaro\u2019s reconstruction of the accusations against Bruno (see also Blumenberg\u2019s part 3, chapter 5, titled \u201cNot a Martyr for Copernicanism: Giordano Bruno\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Blumenberg, H., 1987, The Genesis of the Copernican World<\/i><\/a>, trans. R.M. Wallace, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<\/p>\n

Finocchiaro, M.A., 2002, \u201cPhilosophy versus Religion and Science versus Religion: the Trials of Bruno and Galileo,\u201d [pp.] 51\u201396 in [Hilary] Gatti (ed.), 2002, Giordano Bruno: Philosopher of theRenaissance<\/i><\/a>, Aldershot: Ashgate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Likewise, The Catholic Encyclopedia <\/i>(1908), in its article on Bruno<\/a>, states:<\/p>\n

Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But our agnostic scientist friend wrote:<\/p>\n

That he is not aware of the persecution of Copernicus supporters is interesting. I will help him by looking up the reference. It was in a text book I used for a class once \u2013 which doesn\u2019t in itself make it right, but better than internet as a source.<\/div>\n

Fine; if he refers to Bruno, it is now shown that it is a mistaken inference to say he was killed because of Copernicanism.\u00a0 But he maintained (my italics) that \u201cSeveral<\/i> of Coperincus\u2019<\/span> [sic] supporters were burned at the stake by the Catholic church.\u201d<\/span> Very well, then, bring on these other unfortunate candidates. I am not saying no one was ever burned, but I am unaware of their being burned for heliocentrism<\/i> or Copernicanism<\/i>. If they were, they were, but it has to be documented<\/i>. Blumenberg and Finocchiaro are scholars familiar with the specific subject matter. That is solid substantiation: at least for Bruno.]<\/p>\n

Secondly, the relation of science and religion is not just \u201cpast\u201d but extends to the current time, with a sizable percentage of scientists still professing belief in God<\/a>, and great scientists right up to our time professed theists or otherwise religious.<\/p>\n

[as I showed in my book: listing 31 scientists from 1900-1950 who were theists (e.g., Planck, Eddington, and Lema\u00eetre) or otherwise religious and not materialists (e.g., Einstein) ].<\/p>\n

Galileo was not sentenced to life in prison, but to an extremely mild house arrest: most of the time living in houses that were palaces of high officials.<\/p>\n

[I have noted (first draft for a portion \u2014 pp. 30-31 \u2014 of my book, The One-Minute Apologist<\/i>):<\/p>\n

In 1633 Galileo was \u201cincarcerated\u201d in the palace of Niccolini, the ambassador to the Vatican from Tuscany, who admired Galileo, spent five months with Archbishop Piccolomini in Siena, and then lived in comfortable environments with friends for the rest of his life (though technically under \u201chouse arrest\u201d). No evidence exists to prove that he was ever actually subjected to torture or deliberately blinded (he lost his sight in 1637). ]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

His polemical use of \u201cdark ages\u201d is the usual agnostic misunderstanding. It is not synonymous with the \u201cmiddle ages\u201d but for historians, the period of the late first millennium when the barbarians were in the ascendancy and classical learning was in danger. It was precisely the Church that preserved classical literature and culture, over against these non-Christian barbarians. Yet modern secularists have managed to perpetuate a myth that it was the very opposite of that. Gross ignorance there . . .<\/p>\n

[see, e.g.,\u00a0 Encyclopaedia Brittanica<\/i> online (\u201cDark Ages\u201d<\/a>):<\/p>\n

the early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476\u2013800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. It is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies.]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Anyone can make mistakes in science. That is not exclusive to Catholics in the Middle Ages or earlier. Galileo, Kepler, Newton and other scientists were neck-deep in astrology and the occult. Galileo made several errors in his cosmology and notions of scientific hypothesis; in some cases being corrected by St. Robert Bellarmine.<\/p>\n

If we want persecution of scientists, as late as the late 18th century, I would recommend that your friend study up on the so-called French \u201cEnlightenment\u201d and particularly the case of the great chemist Lavoisier, who was (along with several other prominent scientists) murdered (head lopped off, of course) by the state (far beyond anything that happened to Galileo).<\/p>\n

[These other scientist-martyrs to the \u201cgoddess of reason\u201d were: Philippe-Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric de Dietrich (1748-1793), Nicolas de Condorcet (1743-1794), Jean Baptiste Gaspard Bochart de Saron (1730-1794), Guillaume-Chr\u00e9tien de Lamoignon de Malesherbes (1721-1794), and F\u00e9lix Vicq d\u2019Azyr (1746-1794) ]<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Original title: \u00a0\u201cTypical \u2018Science vs. Catholicism\u2019 Criticisms (and Myths) from an Agnostic Scientist Refuted\u201d (7-29-11) \u00a0 Lavoisier: line engraving by Louis Jean Desire Delaistre, after a design by Julien Leopold Boilly [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons] Antoine Lavoisier: the Father of Chemistry (1743-1794) was the real \u201cmartyr for science\u201d: not Galileo or the rank heretic […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":4502,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[1377,1217,1096,298],"class_list":["post-396","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-philosophy-science","tag-catholic-church-science","tag-catholicism-science","tag-galileo","tag-scientism"],"yoast_head":"\n"Science vs. Catholicism" Myths Refuted<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"It was the Church that preserved classical literature and culture. Yet modern secularists have managed to perpetuate the "science vs. Catholicism" myth.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\""Science vs. Catholicism" Myths Refuted\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"It was the Church that preserved classical literature and culture. Yet modern secularists have managed to perpetuate the "science vs. Catholicism" myth.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-29T18:04:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-30T20:01:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2011\/07\/Lavoisier2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"566\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"768\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html\",\"name\":\"\\\"Science vs. Catholicism\\\" Myths Refuted\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-29T18:04:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-30T20:01:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"It was the Church that preserved classical literature and culture. Yet modern secularists have managed to perpetuate the \\\"science vs. Catholicism\\\" myth.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"“Science vs. Catholicism” Myths Refuted\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\"Science vs. Catholicism\" Myths Refuted","description":"It was the Church that preserved classical literature and culture. Yet modern secularists have managed to perpetuate the \"science vs. Catholicism\" myth.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\"Science vs. Catholicism\" Myths Refuted","og_description":"It was the Church that preserved classical literature and culture. Yet modern secularists have managed to perpetuate the \"science vs. Catholicism\" myth.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2011-07-29T18:04:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-30T20:01:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":566,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2011\/07\/Lavoisier2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html","name":"\"Science vs. Catholicism\" Myths Refuted","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-29T18:04:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-30T20:01:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"It was the Church that preserved classical literature and culture. Yet modern secularists have managed to perpetuate the \"science vs. Catholicism\" myth.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2011\/07\/typical-science-vs-catholicism-criticisms-and-myths-from-an-agnostic-scientist-refuted.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"“Science vs. Catholicism” Myths Refuted"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/396","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=396"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/396\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4502"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=396"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=396"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=396"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}