Well, not really. But my latest post on The Faster Times seems to have actually garnered comments, and was reprinted on something called Alternet, so if you are one of MM‘s elite readership who has not read said post I humbly suggest you do so. It’s about the whole idea of writing about science and religion together, a version of my Mythographer Manifesto. (Also, the TFT actually pays writers 75% of the ad revenue generated by their pages, which is measured per-click, so think of it as putting a penny in the collection plate.)
Posted on September 02, 2009 by Brook – 
3 Comments
What seems ages ago I took a science and religion seminar in a summer at Oxford, and had a professor who was fond of remarking on the irony of Galileo’s dispute with the Church (since the examiners did identify several technical problems with his arguments): “Galileo was right about Biblical interpretation but wrong about the scientific evidence; the Vatican was right about the scientific evidence but wrong about how to read the Bible.” A short way of saying this is an interesting pairing and there’s definitely a dialectical relationship between the two.
Thanks Erik; summer science-and-religion seminar in Oxford sounds quite idyllic! The only part of the movie Religulous that I liked was when Bill Maher interviewed the Vatican’s OFFICIAL ASTRONOMER, George Coyne, who had a much more mature attitude toward the difference between science and religion than did Maher. Having been on the front lines of the battle since Galileo, it seems they’ve got some things figured out at the Vatican.
And….spoken too soon. Rev. Coyne served under Pope John Paul, but Benedict sacked him, and the rest of the Vatican astronomers, to make way for a Papal endorsement of the “intelligent design” theory, which Coyne was heartily against. See 2008 article in The Independent here.