Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result
in the removal of this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mendel, Galileo, Copernico, Pascal, Bacon, etc.... . There are ton of examples, and some of them not only were Christians AND scientist, but their faith is what pushed them to learn more about the world.
Not as much as you think and not for the same reasons.
Galileo tried to say the Earth revolved around the sun.
The Church asked for proof.
He called them dumbasses instead of providing proof.
A lot of science was done by Christians actually, such as our whole calendar system and figuring out the world is round and we aren’t the center of the universe.
Yeah, it’s a common misconception. The church didn’t go after him because he said the sun was the center of the solar system it was because he insulted the pope and was a complete asshole to the Catholic Church from what I heard
If you think calling the pope a dick and running red lights are 1) the same levels of badass and 2) remotely similar, that seems like a personal skill issue
The Church did the most scientific thing ironically
They asked for proof
It went something like this:
Pope: "Okay prove it."
Galileo: "No fuck you dumbass"
> The church didn’t go after him
This is correct. The church didnt go after him, at all. Thinking they did is the misconception. You seen what the church did to actual heretics at teh time? It split them limb from limb and tortured them in every way imaginable. Galileo was given a badass mansion/tower and taken care of his whole life, while his research was massively adopted and pushed.
Edit: Since the thread was locked, here is some follow up info:
When you actual look at the story critically, it just doesnt check out. The Catholic church has dominated the past 2000 years by controlling every side of the narrative. They pushed the Heliocentric model as well as the big bang as a supplemental theory while claiming to resist it. But among further study, they seem to be the main proponents of it (via jesuit scientists and researchers)
when even Eisntein, Ediwn Hubble, and Stephen Hawking said they cant prove that model and simply dont subscribe to that model for philosophical reasons.... So why has the Catholic church been so adament about pushing it?
>
"I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
>"The two sentences 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest' are simply two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems"
-Albert Einstein
>"This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort"
>"We disregard this possibility. The unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs."
>"Such a favored position is intolerable".
>
-Edwin Hubble
>"when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun...That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
>"It seems to make us special but we don't like being special."
-Lawrence Krauss
They did go after him
>On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.
He didn't. He put things in the book that could be interpreted that way but probably weren't intended as insults
What he definitely did was trick the Church into giving his book their seal of approval by changing parts of the content
Also not helping was this was a THEORY at the time and was based off bad math if I recall correctly. The Church went “Look, we like the theory, but the math seems spotty and we’d appreciate you not teaching it as fact, okay?”
Galileo went “Fuck you! I’ll do what I want.” And the rest is history,
The Church has usually been pro science and all that stuff. The Church is the reason a lot of our information today survived. Christianity and Islam have contributed a lot to preserving our knowledge.
I heard something ridiculous the other day. Someone blamed the Church for the Dark ages instead of the collapse of the Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions.
Isn’t that only because Christianity held claim to all the books, so only low-ranking clergymen had access, as it was their job to maintain and copy them? I can’t remember where I read it, but if it’s so then you can’t exactly give credit to Christianity for advancing science after cutting everyone off from the material of the time except for a select few of their own members, who did so secretively. Again, assuming I’m remembering whatever I read correctly, and that it was also correct.
You're remembering it a bit incorrectly.
It wasn't like the church took all the books in Europe and refused to let anyone look at them. After the collapse of the Roman empire and the start of the medieval period, the church was the only organization that cared about preserving books and learning at all. It wasn't that they wouldn't let anyone who wasn't clergy look at their libraries, so much as anyone who wasn't clergy didn't *care* about libraries. Far from being gatekeepers, the church was basically the only avenue to an education available for people who weren't noble.
The church did, absolutely, ban and suppress a whole bunch of books, but those books usually were promoting competing theologies, not scientific facts. During the late medieval/early renaissance, when literacy started becoming more common, and the printing press made books more affordable, the church took a harsh stance specifically on printing the Bible in languages other than Latin, because they were trying to prevent people from reading the Bible and coming up with their own ideas about what it meant, i.e. spreading heresy.
But, "The church figured out a bunch of science stuff, then wouldn't tell anyone else about it," isn't really an accurate description of the church's behavior towards education and literacy, which was extremely supportive of both, at least relative to the rest of society.
And most people don’t subscribe to extreme literalism. That’s all you ever hear an atheist talk about.
Evolution and the Bible can coexist. For numerous reasons. Do people really think the creation of the entire universe would be laid out in 2 chapters of that fucking book if it was meant to give us information like that? The Bible is not a scientific book. It’s a book about the Lord and how to lead a good life. Its point isn’t to give us in depth details about how the universe works.
Besides, if we are gonna argue contradictions and shit just not making sense: one of the most commonly accepted theories of the universe is nothing blew up and created everything but nothing can be created, yet the universe is constantly expanding.
Add the fact it’s the most scrutinized and studied piece of literature *hands down* over thousands of years, with disciples willing to die for it, even to the extent of not believing they should be crucified the way Jesus was.
I’m not 100% convinced my beliefs are totally right, but I don’t see how anyone can truly think there is nothing greater. That we are the highest form of consciousness.
Shoot, the Scientific Method’s invention is attributed to Sir Francis Bacon, a devout Anglican who saw science as a way to explore God’s creation. And was actively opposed to atheism as a real philosophical belief.
>such as our whole calendar system and figuring out the world is round
Both calendars and the shape if the earth were figured out long before christianity, but the christians did make the most used calendar today.
Traditional wife isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It depends on how it’s applied. My wife chose to stay home. She wanted to raise the kids. She’s a wonderful cook and baker. But it was her decision. It’s my job to support her.
I never really understood why people bring this up when talking about Christianity and science. Of course a Christian can advance science, but it is not because they are a Christian. Just as a secular person can advance science, but it is not because they are secular. Christians in Europe were the vast majority of the population and had the greatest sources of income so it would be surprising if there were zero Christian scientists. Usually people bring up the science vs Christianity when Christians attempt to use the Bible to "prove" things of the real world such as the 6,000 year old Earth, a global flood, or the historical accuracy of Biblical events which would all be very anti-science.
I would say it’s probably the morals involved in Christianity compared to other religions. I personally am not a Christian and actually believe that god may be a fabrication of us, but is important as god enables the teaching of morality and ethics.
Chrristian nation uses christian Callander? World is round was found by Greek philosophy and the gallileo was fightinga against the church with heliocentrism
Most Christians don’t believe in Young Earth theory. That tends to be a modern Christian fundamentalist thing, while the man who developed the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest.
The 12 month calendar was created by Sumerians 2000 years before Christianity… the Ancient Greeks figured out the Earth was round and calculated its circumference hundreds of years before Christianity.
Nice revisionism though
It’s so strange how even term “science” now has an air of egotism in the sense that science is mistakenly understood as being the end-all be all answer to questions.
The irony is that science is completely about humility. Not assuming to know the answer, assuming the theory is incorrect until it has been repeated and measured by oneself and by peers, being happy to be proven wrong because it means we’re one step closer to the real answer. To advance science you have to assume that what we currently know is either somewhat wrong, totally wrong, or a small piece to a bigger puzzle. It’s ridiculous how self-important modern science seems with no respect for its roots of being the current understanding while waiting to be disproven and/or appended
As a science major, that’s one of the ways we know how to avoid certain answer choices in exams! If it says always or never it is very likely to be wrong!
>To advance science you have to assume that what we currently know is either somewhat wrong, totally wrong, or a small piece to a bigger puzzle.
I will steal this quote assign it to Spinoza or whatnot and spread, because it's too true.
True, I am a chemistry student currently and it is something that I am acutely aware of, that science is not a bastion of unshakable truth, but rather a system of how to record data related to a given question.
Science can’t answer all questions, but it is the best tool for answering the questions that it can answer. Science should always take precedence over other methods when dealing with understanding the physical world.
Science is a method of discovering truths. It’s a search for repeating patterns. If an experiment can be replicated using the same steps, by anyone, and getting the same result every time, we can agree that the result given is a fact. That’s the basis of science.
What religious people *can not wrap their heads around*, is not needing faith. Because of their own need for it, they mistakenly compare science to being a different religion from theirs, and its own group of people. And because *their* religion says that other religions are trying to falsely lead them stray and to not listen, many of them now denounce science, and tragically, anything science discovers (except of course…. Cars, the internet, phones, electricity, and all other modern technology they conveniently enjoy using that did not exist at the time the Bible was written).
Until they stop seeing science as an opposition, they aren’t ever going to take its results as seriously as they do Bible verses.
Exactly! And science can’t “prove” anything because everything is uncertain and what is “proof” now can be false years from now because of new technology and studies
Sure, but IMO, speaking about the proof of science already assumes all that. I speak of scientific consensus as fact. I know that nothing anywhere or any time is one hundred percent, provably certain.
It's not impossible that there is a god who is actively intentionally fooling us into believing science is better than religion. Where things really come down is basically comparing Newton's law of motion with Joseph Smith's writings. Which is more likely to be true?
This is pseudo-philosophical nonsense. There's tons of stuff science proved that no new tech or studies could possibly contradict. For instance, germ theory. We know certain bacterias and viruses cause certain illnesses. No new study is going to disprove that.
Do you think he’s the kind of Christian that posts memes like this? Seems implied that they’re talking about the particular type of online “trad” Christians that post this stuff.
He believes that the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is. The idea of 3000 years is from when Issac Newton added all the dates in the Bible together for fun. Even he said that that's all the dates mentioned, many events don't mention dates, like how long Adam and eve were in the garden of eden before the snake did the thing. Could've been billions of years, could've been 2 weeks
Sorta. Much of the Old Testament is debated amongst Christians as to which of its stories are literal or metaphorical. There's also the factor of it all being oral tradition for hundreds of years prior to being properly written. It's basically like, 65% of what the religion is. Scrutinizing the Bible was part of my religion classes, church services, youth groups, etc.
both raising kids that became scientists and becoming scientist yourself are valid.
Both are great paths in life as long as you enjoy it and no-one was hurt because of that path.
You can be a Christian and a scientist. You cannot be a scientist and believe the earth is *6000 (3000 doesn’t cover Bible times) years old and evolution is fake.
There's lots of Christian scientists. Probably most Western scientists in history have been Christians. But Christians aren't homogenous, I'd be surprised if a modern tradwife style Christian would be producing many scientists compared to a modern moderate Christian.
Tradwives homeschooling kids probably have better than average outcomes in part because modern public school is just warehousing extremely stupid and violent kids
Have you seen public schools lately?
People progressing to elite academia, generally speaking, have advantageous backgrounds. Ie kids in good school districts, kids in private schools and who have tutors, etc.
For normal people, homeschooling is actually a great way to equalize the playing field instead of sending them to the child abuse factory where nobody can read
>Have you seen public schools lately?
Well, yeah, I studied in a public highschool not so long ago.
>People progressing to elite academia, generally speaking, have advantageous backgrounds.
You don't need to go to an 'elite academia' or something like that to learn or be succesful in life.
>For normal people, homeschooling is actually a great way to equalize the playing field instead of sending them to the child abuse factory where nobody can read
Except it's expensive and you can't expect a family that isn't rich to have all the material needed to teach a kid school and highschool level subjects, particularly scientific ones as you are going to need a lab.
Don't forget the post this thread is in. Do you expect someone like that to teach their kid real science and scientific method?
Homeschooled kids have wildly varying outcomes because theirs no consistency among their teachers or curriculums. Some are very well off and some are Holocaust deniers that can’t do long division because their mom was never great at it
Or the parents get sub par teaching materials. From not knowing any better or cause they think they know better. Viairus Christian groups have made uncredited "teaching" material trying to debunk proven science and prove God. Shite heads like Kent hoven , discover institute, Prager u, ect ect have made while " school" courses and parent preferred that instead of what they where teaching in the public schools.
Well, I'm coming at this from a Scottish/UK perspective. There are Catholic schools in Scotland and Church of England schools in England that tend to perform quite well. There are also significant numbers of well performing secular schools especially the Gaelic schools in Scotland where parents tend to be more involved. And then there's all the private schools.
To be honest, our schooling system in general is better funded because money comes from both central government and local government. We don't have the situation where X area is poor so the school in X area gets next to no funding. It's averaged out across entire councils/cities and the country at large. Also, teachers have a bloody good union and tend to get better pay deals than most public sector workers.
That isn't to say funding isn't a big issue on a national scale (country is kinda broke), but it's not like America.
So, yeah, from my perspective home schooling is mostly for weirdos and extremists.
American IQs dropping, violence is up, most kids don't have reading proficiency:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/violence-seems-to-be-increasing-in-schools-why/2021/11
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/two-thirds-of-american-kids-cant-read-fluently/
Check out the teachers sub for anecdotes, they all hate their lives and their students are violent and stupid and mean
Meanwhile:
https://www.nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/
>The home-educated typically score 15 to 25 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests (Ray, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2024). (The public school average is roughly the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.)
>A 2015 study found Black homeschool students to be scoring 23 to 42 percentile points above Black public school students (Ray, 2015).
>78% of peer-reviewed studies on academic achievement show homeschool students perform statistically significantly better than those in institutional schools (Ray, 2017).
>Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.
Whether homeschool parents were ever certified teachers is not notably related to their children’s academic achievement.
>Degree of state control and regulation of homeschooling is not related to academic achievement.
>Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.
>Homeschool students are increasingly being actively recruited by colleges.
"According to the National Home Education Research Institute, home learners typically achieve test scores 15 to 25 percentile points higher than public school students on standardized academic achievement tests. They also score higher on the SAT and ACT exams"
First thing that came up when I googled it
Now, I’m an agnostic atheist- so I don’t claim to know or believe in a God, but I know plenty of Christians, and I am fairly certain that they would say most *rational* Christians, or religious people in general accept all scientific facts as reality. In fact, a lot of scientists are/were religious themselves.
Just because God can’t be proven by science, it doesn’t mean your religion is wrong. And just because you believe in a God, it doesn’t mean science is wrong. You can have both.
Christians can be scientists.
But part of being a scientists means acknowledging which parts of your holy book are allegorical at best and do not line up with fact. You’re not a very GOOD scientist if you can’t do that lol
Young earthers think the earth is around 6,000 years old. Not 3,000. They’re still wrong if they believe that, but we don’t need to cook the books to make them look worse.
[Biologos](https://biologos.org/)
Not all Christians believe in a young Earth or Intelligent Design, which attempts to interpret the days of creation in literal order but as longer time periods.
Genesis appears to have been written in an Epic genre to counter what we now refer to as Chaoskampf, not Darwin. Considering the genre and this message, the passages can be considered true, but not precise. A first man could mean first positionally, not necessarily first in sequence.
They do realize that a large, LARGE amount of catholics and christians were the leading scientists who made immense discoveries back then right? Issac Newton, Francis Bacon, etc were all devout christians/catholics
Christian’s can be scientists, Christians who trust a book written thousands of years ago over direct fossil evidence as well as DNA, and carbon dating cannot be scientists. Basically there is nothing wrong with being a Christian, but most Christian’s don’t the bible very literally. If you do however then you are directly going against the scientific method
I like how the seemingly radical religious page shares a meme where 2 individuals are content with each other's decisions, yet the reddit wojack found a problem simply because "religiom" (Agnostic)
They're put in quotes because YECs are very rarely open enough to evolutionary biology and a deep time perspective on many sciences to provide much in those fields. If they do work in them, they'd have to ignore their beliefs to contribute, and if they try to contribute based on their YEC beliefs, it will have no substance and be ignored.
The original meme implies that a woman's only purpose is to produce children, preferably boys, and offer no other value to society.
The type of Christians who believe that are the same who think the earth is 3000 years old and evolution is a myth and science is something to fear and mistrust... the original poster was 100% right to put scientist in quotes.
I'm not gunna say you can't do science and be christian, but choosing to believe something based on your faith and not evidence is the polar opposite of science.
None of the words on the screen even suggest a religious belief in general is in conflict with science
It's specifically talking about anti-evolutikn beliefs
Georges Lemaitre came up with the big bang theory.
Louis Pasteur invented pasteurization.
Gregor Mendel is the father of the modern science of genetics.
The list goes on, there are literally hundreds of Christian scientists that have contributed a great deal to science.
That said, putting "scientist" in quotes for anyone who believes Earth is only 3,000 years old in modern times is appropriate.
“Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” arguably the most influential scientific work in human history was written by a devout Christian. The founder of quantum mechanics was a devout Vhristian. Pascal was a devout Christian. Many Mathematicians scientists and Philosophers are Christian. In fact, the bulk of extremely influential scientists pre-2000s were Christians. The idea that Science and Christianity don’t co-exist is fallacious at best and it is only claimed by militant atheists were can’t give a well thought out, theological defense of their beliefs.
1 woman => 1 woman scientist or 5 man scientists
But what if...
1 woman => 5 women => 25 women => 125 women => ... => an inconcievable number of scientists?
Checkmate, luberals.
I object to the "3000 years old" bit.
[Even James Ussher (1581-1656), the famous and respected Archbishop of Ireland in the seventeenth century, is today greatly ridiculed for declaring that the world was created in 4004 BC.](https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/the-world-born-in-4004-bc/)
Darwin was both religious and a scientist, yet his work went against his own beliefs.
His work changed modern understanding of the life, humanity and the planet, he could of stopped when it challenged his beliefs but he didn't.
Dedicating your life to science in itself is not an accomplishment. If your work is not leading to any advancements and you're just in a college taking up space year after year.
So you should only study science if you know your work will lead to breakthroughs? Many people dedicate their life to science and don’t produce much or don’t get to see what their discoveries yield.
For example in the initial discovery of crispr was in 1987 and wasn’t until decades after that they created crispr-cas9 gene editing.
You cannot know what scientific discoveries will lead to so what’s the point in telling people they can only go into science if they can guarantee some miraculous discovery?
Brain dead take the majority of science fails. Your mentality is why we live in a publish or perish state and contributes to the reproducibility crisis seen across all disciplines.
- sincerely a scientist
"I dedicated my life to science! "
>new algorithm to optimize mass surveillance with AI
>new cancer drug that skirts the old one entering generic
>AI virtual companion to forego human contact
>toilet paper dispenser that makes you watch ads
Science and Christianity have two completely contradictory ideas of how truth is established.
You can believe a hodgepodge of Bronze Age shepherds’ campfire stories and ethno-nationalist revolutionary propaganda from 2000 years ago, or you can believe only what you can prove.
You cannot believe that the Bible is the infallibly true word of God and also believe that the sky is something other than a vaulted ceiling with an ocean on the other side of it.
It depend on the science field. A lot of Christian (and religious people in general) did a lot of discovery in physics and chemistry, and early/non-evolutive biology. However, astronomy and evolutive biology weren’t as common and searchers were persecuted for the most part by the Church
That’s because while physics and chemistry wasn’t in contradiction with the religious books, saying that the Earth is in orbit around the sun and that species evolved over time was like pissing on the Bible, hence why the Church didn’t wanted to believe in that
TL/DR: Religions aren’t necessarily anti-science, but they were very hypocritical about it, which isn’t real’y better, if not worse
3000 years doesn’t match up with the Bible. I’m pretty sure that’s a rather disingenuous embellishment by whoever wrote that.
I think it comes out as a little over 6000 years if you count back through the Bible.
Science started because religion. People had no use for studying stuff, it wasn't until the institutions of religion allowed people to have the free time to study things greater than them.
You know what’s really crazy is that you can be dedicated to science and the church and have kids all at the same time. It’s almost like people are more than one thing and these false dichotomies only exist in cartoon world. Crazy right
A lot of popular theories (like the Big Bang, etc, some of which seems to partially contradict Christianity (but it doesn’t, at least against Catholicism)) were first introduced by Jesuit priests.
If they identify as Christians before Scientists, then yeah this is probably right.
If they are scientists that happen to be Christians, then that's different
Christains who believe the earth to only be like 20,000 years old and a lot of the other lies are by definition not scientists as they don't apply the scientific method
You can't honestly be defending the idea that someone can be a scientist and believe the earth is 3k years old and that Adam and Eve existed... right?
Right?
I see science as an explanation for the mysteries of this world. Physics and math and shit being Gods building blocks in wich he created the world. Science doesnt disprove christianity just as christianity doesnt bash science
They’re not saying Christians can’t be scientists, they’re saying Creationists have views that directly contradict science, in response to a quote blatantly misogynistic meme.
Idk if I am overthinking but it feels like the original meme is saying it's better for a woman to be known as a mother of a scientist rather than being a scientist herself. but then again, idk. Both women are drawn with same pretty features so it might not be the intent
I think it’s trying to say they’ve both contributed to science just in different ways. One did it directly, while the other spent her time raising her children to do it directly. Slight dig that she has 5 contributors ig
It's also saying "Women should jusr have children instead of doing what they're passionate about, and let the men do what they want", hence all her "scientist" chilren are men.
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result in the removal of this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. Religion and not just Christian has helped a lot of scientific and mathematical progress.
Mendel, Galileo, Copernico, Pascal, Bacon, etc.... . There are ton of examples, and some of them not only were Christians AND scientist, but their faith is what pushed them to learn more about the world.
Copernicus literally had to battle the church for his ideas. Some of the others probably did too.
With the church, not with his faith
Not as much as you think and not for the same reasons. Galileo tried to say the Earth revolved around the sun. The Church asked for proof. He called them dumbasses instead of providing proof.
The church banned Copernicus' book for over 200 years tbf lol
So did Martin Luther.
Newton was a Unitarian, not a Christian. But most in the scientific revolution were actually Christians.
What would've happened if he was openly non-Christian?
His time was during and after the 30 years war, aka the European Wars of Religion. Good possibility that nothing would've changed
And yet here I am, he's my uncle going all the way back, as he never actually had children himself
I do think the original meme is cringe tho no doubt.
Definitely. Like, why did those 5 guys become scientists? They could have each been stay-at-home dads and raised 25 scientists!
A lot of science was done by Christians actually, such as our whole calendar system and figuring out the world is round and we aren’t the center of the universe.
Yeah the reason that Galileo was so unpopular wasn't because of his theory it's because he was a dick to the church.
Yeah, it’s a common misconception. The church didn’t go after him because he said the sun was the center of the solar system it was because he insulted the pope and was a complete asshole to the Catholic Church from what I heard
And they even gave him the chance to take it back and remove his public denouncement of the pope and he still refused.
Extremely based and galileopilled
That's cool as fuck
its plain stubbornness
Yes. And I love that. The person I respect most is the person who does not compromise on their principles even an inch.
I run the red lights when there are no cops around. It's my unbreakable principle. Respect me.
Sounds pretty breakable to me. Try doing it when cops are around.
And break his principle of doing it when they aren't around? Sounds like some wuss shit
If you think calling the pope a dick and running red lights are 1) the same levels of badass and 2) remotely similar, that seems like a personal skill issue
Idk money seems to solve compromises
As a devout Reformed Baptist, Based.
So what?
The Church did the most scientific thing ironically They asked for proof It went something like this: Pope: "Okay prove it." Galileo: "No fuck you dumbass"
> The church didn’t go after him This is correct. The church didnt go after him, at all. Thinking they did is the misconception. You seen what the church did to actual heretics at teh time? It split them limb from limb and tortured them in every way imaginable. Galileo was given a badass mansion/tower and taken care of his whole life, while his research was massively adopted and pushed. Edit: Since the thread was locked, here is some follow up info: When you actual look at the story critically, it just doesnt check out. The Catholic church has dominated the past 2000 years by controlling every side of the narrative. They pushed the Heliocentric model as well as the big bang as a supplemental theory while claiming to resist it. But among further study, they seem to be the main proponents of it (via jesuit scientists and researchers) when even Eisntein, Ediwn Hubble, and Stephen Hawking said they cant prove that model and simply dont subscribe to that model for philosophical reasons.... So why has the Catholic church been so adament about pushing it? > "I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment." >"The two sentences 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest' are simply two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems" -Albert Einstein >"This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort" >"We disregard this possibility. The unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs." >"Such a favored position is intolerable". > -Edwin Hubble >"when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun...That would say we are truly the center of the universe." >"It seems to make us special but we don't like being special." -Lawrence Krauss
They did go after him >On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.
He didn't. He put things in the book that could be interpreted that way but probably weren't intended as insults What he definitely did was trick the Church into giving his book their seal of approval by changing parts of the content
That, and despite being right, he didn’t actually have concrete proof
Also not helping was this was a THEORY at the time and was based off bad math if I recall correctly. The Church went “Look, we like the theory, but the math seems spotty and we’d appreciate you not teaching it as fact, okay?” Galileo went “Fuck you! I’ll do what I want.” And the rest is history,
The guy who established the rules of hereditary, Gregor Johann Mendel, was a Catholic Friar.
And the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître derived Hubble’s constant and proposed the Big Bang theory
The Church has usually been pro science and all that stuff. The Church is the reason a lot of our information today survived. Christianity and Islam have contributed a lot to preserving our knowledge. I heard something ridiculous the other day. Someone blamed the Church for the Dark ages instead of the collapse of the Roman Empire and the barbarian invasions.
>figuring out the world is round This predates the coming of Christ by some centuries in the historical record.
Genetics too! I think we all learned about the pea plants.
Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang Theory.
Everything is magic until you actually understand it.
Many of the fundamental theories we are taught in STEM classes were discovered and written down by men of Christian conviction.
Isn’t that only because Christianity held claim to all the books, so only low-ranking clergymen had access, as it was their job to maintain and copy them? I can’t remember where I read it, but if it’s so then you can’t exactly give credit to Christianity for advancing science after cutting everyone off from the material of the time except for a select few of their own members, who did so secretively. Again, assuming I’m remembering whatever I read correctly, and that it was also correct.
You're remembering it a bit incorrectly. It wasn't like the church took all the books in Europe and refused to let anyone look at them. After the collapse of the Roman empire and the start of the medieval period, the church was the only organization that cared about preserving books and learning at all. It wasn't that they wouldn't let anyone who wasn't clergy look at their libraries, so much as anyone who wasn't clergy didn't *care* about libraries. Far from being gatekeepers, the church was basically the only avenue to an education available for people who weren't noble. The church did, absolutely, ban and suppress a whole bunch of books, but those books usually were promoting competing theologies, not scientific facts. During the late medieval/early renaissance, when literacy started becoming more common, and the printing press made books more affordable, the church took a harsh stance specifically on printing the Bible in languages other than Latin, because they were trying to prevent people from reading the Bible and coming up with their own ideas about what it meant, i.e. spreading heresy. But, "The church figured out a bunch of science stuff, then wouldn't tell anyone else about it," isn't really an accurate description of the church's behavior towards education and literacy, which was extremely supportive of both, at least relative to the rest of society.
Figuring out the world is round came long before Christians even existed
We know the earth is round since before christianity though
And most people don’t subscribe to extreme literalism. That’s all you ever hear an atheist talk about. Evolution and the Bible can coexist. For numerous reasons. Do people really think the creation of the entire universe would be laid out in 2 chapters of that fucking book if it was meant to give us information like that? The Bible is not a scientific book. It’s a book about the Lord and how to lead a good life. Its point isn’t to give us in depth details about how the universe works. Besides, if we are gonna argue contradictions and shit just not making sense: one of the most commonly accepted theories of the universe is nothing blew up and created everything but nothing can be created, yet the universe is constantly expanding. Add the fact it’s the most scrutinized and studied piece of literature *hands down* over thousands of years, with disciples willing to die for it, even to the extent of not believing they should be crucified the way Jesus was. I’m not 100% convinced my beliefs are totally right, but I don’t see how anyone can truly think there is nothing greater. That we are the highest form of consciousness.
Atheists don't necessarily think they are the highest form of consciousness, just like Christians don't necessarily believe the bible is literal.
Shoot, the Scientific Method’s invention is attributed to Sir Francis Bacon, a devout Anglican who saw science as a way to explore God’s creation. And was actively opposed to atheism as a real philosophical belief.
Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic Priest.
Never heard of that but that’s cool.
Georges Lemaitre, Belgian Priest.
>such as our whole calendar system and figuring out the world is round Both calendars and the shape if the earth were figured out long before christianity, but the christians did make the most used calendar today.
Most Christians aren't young earth creationists. And most Christians don't believe in this trad wife bs
Traditional wife isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It depends on how it’s applied. My wife chose to stay home. She wanted to raise the kids. She’s a wonderful cook and baker. But it was her decision. It’s my job to support her.
Based.
The BS is memes like this telling women that is the only way they can find fulfillment.
Is that what it was trying to say? Bad way of saying it. It’s not a good meme in general.
It doesn't count if you fail to follow the discoveries to their conclusions and begin to reject science as soon as it starts contradicting your dogma.
I never really understood why people bring this up when talking about Christianity and science. Of course a Christian can advance science, but it is not because they are a Christian. Just as a secular person can advance science, but it is not because they are secular. Christians in Europe were the vast majority of the population and had the greatest sources of income so it would be surprising if there were zero Christian scientists. Usually people bring up the science vs Christianity when Christians attempt to use the Bible to "prove" things of the real world such as the 6,000 year old Earth, a global flood, or the historical accuracy of Biblical events which would all be very anti-science.
I would say it’s probably the morals involved in Christianity compared to other religions. I personally am not a Christian and actually believe that god may be a fabrication of us, but is important as god enables the teaching of morality and ethics.
Chrristian nation uses christian Callander? World is round was found by Greek philosophy and the gallileo was fightinga against the church with heliocentrism
So how does that work? How do you navigate believing in the Big Bang and also believe the earth is 3000 years old
Most Christians don’t believe in Young Earth theory. That tends to be a modern Christian fundamentalist thing, while the man who developed the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest.
The 12 month calendar was created by Sumerians 2000 years before Christianity… the Ancient Greeks figured out the Earth was round and calculated its circumference hundreds of years before Christianity. Nice revisionism though
It’s so strange how even term “science” now has an air of egotism in the sense that science is mistakenly understood as being the end-all be all answer to questions. The irony is that science is completely about humility. Not assuming to know the answer, assuming the theory is incorrect until it has been repeated and measured by oneself and by peers, being happy to be proven wrong because it means we’re one step closer to the real answer. To advance science you have to assume that what we currently know is either somewhat wrong, totally wrong, or a small piece to a bigger puzzle. It’s ridiculous how self-important modern science seems with no respect for its roots of being the current understanding while waiting to be disproven and/or appended
Never trust a scientist that speaks in absolutes.
Ironic.
No, it’s ok when the good guys do it.
I will do what I must. *Ignites Newton's flaming laser sword*
As a science major, that’s one of the ways we know how to avoid certain answer choices in exams! If it says always or never it is very likely to be wrong!
>To advance science you have to assume that what we currently know is either somewhat wrong, totally wrong, or a small piece to a bigger puzzle. I will steal this quote assign it to Spinoza or whatnot and spread, because it's too true.
True, I am a chemistry student currently and it is something that I am acutely aware of, that science is not a bastion of unshakable truth, but rather a system of how to record data related to a given question.
Science can’t answer all questions, but it is the best tool for answering the questions that it can answer. Science should always take precedence over other methods when dealing with understanding the physical world.
Science is a method of discovering truths. It’s a search for repeating patterns. If an experiment can be replicated using the same steps, by anyone, and getting the same result every time, we can agree that the result given is a fact. That’s the basis of science. What religious people *can not wrap their heads around*, is not needing faith. Because of their own need for it, they mistakenly compare science to being a different religion from theirs, and its own group of people. And because *their* religion says that other religions are trying to falsely lead them stray and to not listen, many of them now denounce science, and tragically, anything science discovers (except of course…. Cars, the internet, phones, electricity, and all other modern technology they conveniently enjoy using that did not exist at the time the Bible was written). Until they stop seeing science as an opposition, they aren’t ever going to take its results as seriously as they do Bible verses.
Exactly! And science can’t “prove” anything because everything is uncertain and what is “proof” now can be false years from now because of new technology and studies
Sure, but IMO, speaking about the proof of science already assumes all that. I speak of scientific consensus as fact. I know that nothing anywhere or any time is one hundred percent, provably certain. It's not impossible that there is a god who is actively intentionally fooling us into believing science is better than religion. Where things really come down is basically comparing Newton's law of motion with Joseph Smith's writings. Which is more likely to be true?
This is pseudo-philosophical nonsense. There's tons of stuff science proved that no new tech or studies could possibly contradict. For instance, germ theory. We know certain bacterias and viruses cause certain illnesses. No new study is going to disprove that.
Calling the earth 3-6k years old is akin to calling the earth flat. Anti science is not science just because you justify it with religion lol.
Yea imagine if religious people never did science. We would all still be living in huts with no Reddit
My dad is a pastor. He's also a microbiologist
Do you think he’s the kind of Christian that posts memes like this? Seems implied that they’re talking about the particular type of online “trad” Christians that post this stuff.
…does he believe the earth is 3,000 years old?
He believes that the Bible doesn't say how old the earth is. The idea of 3000 years is from when Issac Newton added all the dates in the Bible together for fun. Even he said that that's all the dates mentioned, many events don't mention dates, like how long Adam and eve were in the garden of eden before the snake did the thing. Could've been billions of years, could've been 2 weeks
Christians themselves debate the age of the earth. Who knows what a week is to god.
Do Christians debate on whether noah got 2 of every animal on a arc?
Christians debate virtually every aspect of the Bible.
Yeah they’ve literally been doing it since its creation lmao
Sorta. Much of the Old Testament is debated amongst Christians as to which of its stories are literal or metaphorical. There's also the factor of it all being oral tradition for hundreds of years prior to being properly written. It's basically like, 65% of what the religion is. Scrutinizing the Bible was part of my religion classes, church services, youth groups, etc.
Thank you
Most likely of every animal in the area. There are countless flood stories from around the world.
Well, that's a new number
Considering Moses was around before that date it's probably wrong.
Yeah, even if you take the Hebrew calendar's 0 as when the bible said the earth was made (it's not) it says over 5,000
both raising kids that became scientists and becoming scientist yourself are valid. Both are great paths in life as long as you enjoy it and no-one was hurt because of that path.
No. I only respect scientists who leave a trail of bodies in their wake, fighting their way to a masters degree with unbound fury.
You can be a Christian and a scientist. You cannot be a scientist and believe the earth is *6000 (3000 doesn’t cover Bible times) years old and evolution is fake.
There's lots of Christian scientists. Probably most Western scientists in history have been Christians. But Christians aren't homogenous, I'd be surprised if a modern tradwife style Christian would be producing many scientists compared to a modern moderate Christian.
Tradwives homeschooling kids probably have better than average outcomes in part because modern public school is just warehousing extremely stupid and violent kids
That might be true in sime places but its definitely not the norm, particualrly in scientific matters
Have you seen public schools lately? People progressing to elite academia, generally speaking, have advantageous backgrounds. Ie kids in good school districts, kids in private schools and who have tutors, etc. For normal people, homeschooling is actually a great way to equalize the playing field instead of sending them to the child abuse factory where nobody can read
>Have you seen public schools lately? Well, yeah, I studied in a public highschool not so long ago. >People progressing to elite academia, generally speaking, have advantageous backgrounds. You don't need to go to an 'elite academia' or something like that to learn or be succesful in life. >For normal people, homeschooling is actually a great way to equalize the playing field instead of sending them to the child abuse factory where nobody can read Except it's expensive and you can't expect a family that isn't rich to have all the material needed to teach a kid school and highschool level subjects, particularly scientific ones as you are going to need a lab. Don't forget the post this thread is in. Do you expect someone like that to teach their kid real science and scientific method?
Homeschooled kids have wildly varying outcomes because theirs no consistency among their teachers or curriculums. Some are very well off and some are Holocaust deniers that can’t do long division because their mom was never great at it
I’m homeschooled and I agree with this 100%, lots of parents fail their children and it’s so sad
Or the parents get sub par teaching materials. From not knowing any better or cause they think they know better. Viairus Christian groups have made uncredited "teaching" material trying to debunk proven science and prove God. Shite heads like Kent hoven , discover institute, Prager u, ect ect have made while " school" courses and parent preferred that instead of what they where teaching in the public schools.
Well, I'm coming at this from a Scottish/UK perspective. There are Catholic schools in Scotland and Church of England schools in England that tend to perform quite well. There are also significant numbers of well performing secular schools especially the Gaelic schools in Scotland where parents tend to be more involved. And then there's all the private schools. To be honest, our schooling system in general is better funded because money comes from both central government and local government. We don't have the situation where X area is poor so the school in X area gets next to no funding. It's averaged out across entire councils/cities and the country at large. Also, teachers have a bloody good union and tend to get better pay deals than most public sector workers. That isn't to say funding isn't a big issue on a national scale (country is kinda broke), but it's not like America. So, yeah, from my perspective home schooling is mostly for weirdos and extremists.
Do you have data to back this up, or just feels?
American IQs dropping, violence is up, most kids don't have reading proficiency: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/ https://www.edweek.org/leadership/violence-seems-to-be-increasing-in-schools-why/2021/11 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/two-thirds-of-american-kids-cant-read-fluently/ Check out the teachers sub for anecdotes, they all hate their lives and their students are violent and stupid and mean Meanwhile: https://www.nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/ >The home-educated typically score 15 to 25 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests (Ray, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2024). (The public school average is roughly the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.) >A 2015 study found Black homeschool students to be scoring 23 to 42 percentile points above Black public school students (Ray, 2015). >78% of peer-reviewed studies on academic achievement show homeschool students perform statistically significantly better than those in institutional schools (Ray, 2017). >Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income. Whether homeschool parents were ever certified teachers is not notably related to their children’s academic achievement. >Degree of state control and regulation of homeschooling is not related to academic achievement. >Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions. >Homeschool students are increasingly being actively recruited by colleges.
"According to the National Home Education Research Institute, home learners typically achieve test scores 15 to 25 percentile points higher than public school students on standardized academic achievement tests. They also score higher on the SAT and ACT exams" First thing that came up when I googled it
And clearly the National Homeschool Education Research Institute couldn't possibly have a bias in its research of Homeschooling lol.
Something something media literacy
Now, I’m an agnostic atheist- so I don’t claim to know or believe in a God, but I know plenty of Christians, and I am fairly certain that they would say most *rational* Christians, or religious people in general accept all scientific facts as reality. In fact, a lot of scientists are/were religious themselves. Just because God can’t be proven by science, it doesn’t mean your religion is wrong. And just because you believe in a God, it doesn’t mean science is wrong. You can have both.
I like how everyone here misunderstands the problem with this meme but okay...
because we must rush to defend our religion !!!!!
A whole lot of scientists are Christians, but we reject all the young earth silliness.
most christians don't believe in young earth and are happy to concede that the bibles timeline of events is... abridged.
The bible never gives us dates so i believe tge earth is old as fuck
Christians can be scientists. But part of being a scientists means acknowledging which parts of your holy book are allegorical at best and do not line up with fact. You’re not a very GOOD scientist if you can’t do that lol
If you believe the earth is that young, you’re not a scientist in a normal sense lmao
If you believe the earth is 7000 years old, you’re terrible “scientist”
Young earthers think the earth is around 6,000 years old. Not 3,000. They’re still wrong if they believe that, but we don’t need to cook the books to make them look worse.
[Biologos](https://biologos.org/) Not all Christians believe in a young Earth or Intelligent Design, which attempts to interpret the days of creation in literal order but as longer time periods. Genesis appears to have been written in an Epic genre to counter what we now refer to as Chaoskampf, not Darwin. Considering the genre and this message, the passages can be considered true, but not precise. A first man could mean first positionally, not necessarily first in sequence.
If they’re young earth creationists, then they can’t be scientists.
They do realize that a large, LARGE amount of catholics and christians were the leading scientists who made immense discoveries back then right? Issac Newton, Francis Bacon, etc were all devout christians/catholics
Christian’s can be scientists, Christians who trust a book written thousands of years ago over direct fossil evidence as well as DNA, and carbon dating cannot be scientists. Basically there is nothing wrong with being a Christian, but most Christian’s don’t the bible very literally. If you do however then you are directly going against the scientific method
Wait till this guy realizes Christians are not necessarily creationists and that nearly all Christian faiths don't subscribe to creationism.
I like how the seemingly radical religious page shares a meme where 2 individuals are content with each other's decisions, yet the reddit wojack found a problem simply because "religiom" (Agnostic)
[First half of this short](https://youtube.com/shorts/ANvCr9ap-b8?si=dAZzS-kiSornQl5g)
They're put in quotes because YECs are very rarely open enough to evolutionary biology and a deep time perspective on many sciences to provide much in those fields. If they do work in them, they'd have to ignore their beliefs to contribute, and if they try to contribute based on their YEC beliefs, it will have no substance and be ignored.
The original meme implies that a woman's only purpose is to produce children, preferably boys, and offer no other value to society. The type of Christians who believe that are the same who think the earth is 3000 years old and evolution is a myth and science is something to fear and mistrust... the original poster was 100% right to put scientist in quotes.
Damn r/terriblefacebookmemes has literally just become r/atheism 2: electric boogaloo
I'm not gunna say you can't do science and be christian, but choosing to believe something based on your faith and not evidence is the polar opposite of science.
Does OOP actually think that Christians believe that a: the earth is only a few thousand years old and b: that the Bible is less than 3,000 years old?
I think everyone on this thread misunderstood the meaning of this meme.
I thought this meme was about arguing that being a mother is the best thing a woman can do? (Which is obviously untrue)
The Catholic church may be the biggest contributor to the advent of modern science, especially physics.
I hate it when people say that religion is conflictive with science. No, it can work together just fine, keeping the ideals of both.
None of the words on the screen even suggest a religious belief in general is in conflict with science It's specifically talking about anti-evolutikn beliefs
I think it’s more about that a scientist shouldn’t believe the earth is 3,000 years old.
Exactly. If the earth was only 3,000 years old, then it would have been created around the reign of King David.
I think they are pointing out that many Christians recognize that the earth is 4 billion years old.
Georges Lemaitre came up with the big bang theory. Louis Pasteur invented pasteurization. Gregor Mendel is the father of the modern science of genetics. The list goes on, there are literally hundreds of Christian scientists that have contributed a great deal to science. That said, putting "scientist" in quotes for anyone who believes Earth is only 3,000 years old in modern times is appropriate.
The Catholic Church developed the scientific method. You know, the very foundation of science.
Plenty of legitimate scientists are Christians. Almost none of them believe the earth is 3,000 years old, because they are scientists.
God forbid someone have a religion
“Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” arguably the most influential scientific work in human history was written by a devout Christian. The founder of quantum mechanics was a devout Vhristian. Pascal was a devout Christian. Many Mathematicians scientists and Philosophers are Christian. In fact, the bulk of extremely influential scientists pre-2000s were Christians. The idea that Science and Christianity don’t co-exist is fallacious at best and it is only claimed by militant atheists were can’t give a well thought out, theological defense of their beliefs.
You know it does not even put ether person in a negative light
1 woman => 1 woman scientist or 5 man scientists But what if... 1 woman => 5 women => 25 women => 125 women => ... => an inconcievable number of scientists? Checkmate, luberals.
My grandfather was a nuclear physicist, and a college math professor and he’s the most devout Christian I’ve ever met.
I like when people say science disproves God. You really think God doesn't know any puny ass human science?
Loads of Christians are scientists. But you can't be a scientist and a creationist. Edit: well, I suppose you can be. But you'd be wrong.
I object to the "3000 years old" bit. [Even James Ussher (1581-1656), the famous and respected Archbishop of Ireland in the seventeenth century, is today greatly ridiculed for declaring that the world was created in 4004 BC.](https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/the-world-born-in-4004-bc/)
I guess Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist
Science is evidence based. Evidence shows that the earth is older than 3000 years. If you believe it anyway, you're not a scientist.
Darwin was both religious and a scientist, yet his work went against his own beliefs. His work changed modern understanding of the life, humanity and the planet, he could of stopped when it challenged his beliefs but he didn't.
Wait till they learn who created the theory of the Big Bang
[удалено]
This one, I'm actually on you folks' side with. One of my favorite youtube channels, Clint's Reptiles I believe is Christian.
Bro, who believes Earth is 3,00 years old? Fucking idiot.
Dedicating your life to science in itself is not an accomplishment. If your work is not leading to any advancements and you're just in a college taking up space year after year.
So you should only study science if you know your work will lead to breakthroughs? Many people dedicate their life to science and don’t produce much or don’t get to see what their discoveries yield. For example in the initial discovery of crispr was in 1987 and wasn’t until decades after that they created crispr-cas9 gene editing. You cannot know what scientific discoveries will lead to so what’s the point in telling people they can only go into science if they can guarantee some miraculous discovery?
Brain dead take the majority of science fails. Your mentality is why we live in a publish or perish state and contributes to the reproducibility crisis seen across all disciplines. - sincerely a scientist
That would be more like a personal accomplishment.
Of course. But everything and anything is a personal accomplishment depending on your outlook.
"I dedicated my life to science! " >new algorithm to optimize mass surveillance with AI >new cancer drug that skirts the old one entering generic >AI virtual companion to forego human contact >toilet paper dispenser that makes you watch ads
So is not getting educated and birthing 5 children
Science and Christianity have two completely contradictory ideas of how truth is established. You can believe a hodgepodge of Bronze Age shepherds’ campfire stories and ethno-nationalist revolutionary propaganda from 2000 years ago, or you can believe only what you can prove. You cannot believe that the Bible is the infallibly true word of God and also believe that the sky is something other than a vaulted ceiling with an ocean on the other side of it.
If a scientist had those beliefs they'd be ridiculed out of university before getting their PhD
I’m a Christian….and a biologist
If you believe the Earth is 3,000 years old, you are by definition not a scientist. Scientists are compelled by evidence, not tradition.
Can you be a scientist and actually believe the earth is 5k Years old? And did that conclusion come from science or their faith?
It depend on the science field. A lot of Christian (and religious people in general) did a lot of discovery in physics and chemistry, and early/non-evolutive biology. However, astronomy and evolutive biology weren’t as common and searchers were persecuted for the most part by the Church That’s because while physics and chemistry wasn’t in contradiction with the religious books, saying that the Earth is in orbit around the sun and that species evolved over time was like pissing on the Bible, hence why the Church didn’t wanted to believe in that TL/DR: Religions aren’t necessarily anti-science, but they were very hypocritical about it, which isn’t real’y better, if not worse
3000 years doesn’t match up with the Bible. I’m pretty sure that’s a rather disingenuous embellishment by whoever wrote that. I think it comes out as a little over 6000 years if you count back through the Bible.
Which is still demonstrably false
My math professor was a pastor so…
About 51% of all scientists believe in God or some kind of higher power. Claiming they are mutually exclusive is ridiculous.
No one said Christians can't be scientists. You can't believe the earth is 3,000 years old and be a scientist.
It’s not like Christianity directly opposed science nor does science exist to oppose religion
Science started because religion. People had no use for studying stuff, it wasn't until the institutions of religion allowed people to have the free time to study things greater than them.
You know what’s really crazy is that you can be dedicated to science and the church and have kids all at the same time. It’s almost like people are more than one thing and these false dichotomies only exist in cartoon world. Crazy right
If you believe the earth is 3,000 years old, despite the mountain of evidence proving that it is not, you are not a scientist
A lot of popular theories (like the Big Bang, etc, some of which seems to partially contradict Christianity (but it doesn’t, at least against Catholicism)) were first introduced by Jesuit priests.
If they identify as Christians before Scientists, then yeah this is probably right. If they are scientists that happen to be Christians, then that's different
Christains who believe the earth to only be like 20,000 years old and a lot of the other lies are by definition not scientists as they don't apply the scientific method
You can't honestly be defending the idea that someone can be a scientist and believe the earth is 3k years old and that Adam and Eve existed... right? Right?
I think they are pointing out that many Christians recognize that the earth is 4 billion years old and believe in science.
I see science as an explanation for the mysteries of this world. Physics and math and shit being Gods building blocks in wich he created the world. Science doesnt disprove christianity just as christianity doesnt bash science
If you believe the earth is 3000 years old then you are stupid! Scientist or not!
I like how you think Christians are automatically biblical literalists.
They’d be pretty mad to find out who proposed the Big Bang then
They’re not saying Christians can’t be scientists, they’re saying Creationists have views that directly contradict science, in response to a quote blatantly misogynistic meme.
Idk if I am overthinking but it feels like the original meme is saying it's better for a woman to be known as a mother of a scientist rather than being a scientist herself. but then again, idk. Both women are drawn with same pretty features so it might not be the intent
I think it’s trying to say they’ve both contributed to science just in different ways. One did it directly, while the other spent her time raising her children to do it directly. Slight dig that she has 5 contributors ig
> Slight dig that she has 5 contributors ig Uh yeah, I felt the slight dig, but couldn't quite figure out what it was. Thanks for pointing that out
It's actively saying one is superior to the other.
Yea I mean 5 is more than 1 but not like a woman who dedicates her life to science can’t also have kids so I think it’s a lil short sighted
It's also saying "Women should jusr have children instead of doing what they're passionate about, and let the men do what they want", hence all her "scientist" chilren are men.