Religious

[dnlgfnk]

Greyfox, I enjoy your posts.

But let's remind ourselves not to repeat what others state from lazy research, if at all. The most intellectually honest atheist I have yet to come across is Tim O'Neill:

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2...val-world.html

"About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get some discussion where someone invokes the old "Conflict Thesis" and gets in the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. The hoary standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being garbage. The Galileo Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much about science as it was about Scripture."

I know it's been stated before here that Galileo thought he now had authority to interpret scripture doctrinally.

[dnlgfnk]

And if one wants to follow the daily boxscores on heliocentrism from the Greeks and jumping to the 1500's, Mike Flynn has kept score...

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/...smackdown.html

I encountered Flynn and O'Neill through blogger Mark Shea some years ago.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

SMTW...the word "heliocentric" is yours, not mine. All I said was that Galileo, by use of his telescope, refuted the Roman Catholic Church's belief that the earth was the center of the universe. For your information, Giordano Bruno went even further than Copernicus...contended that the universe was infinite...and had no center, and we all know what the church did to Giordano Bruno.

Galileo played ball with the Catholic Church, and retracted his contention that the earth traveled around the sun...and that's what saved his life. Bruno didn't...and he paid for his "defiance" to the church's cosmological doctrine.

You said:

Look how Christianity reacted to the obvious observation of the scientists that the earth revolved around the sun.

And I told you why Galileo could not refute the Church's belief in settled science of the time that it was geocentric? His observation was not obvious nor unique and been refuted by Aristotle centuries earlier. Maybe, he refuted based on knowing he could not scientifically prove his theory as fact and wanted to avoid the wrath of his scientific peers.

When it became obvious to scientists most Christians, except protestants, accepted it like rational beings.

Bruno was not a scientist, that was his problem. However, I agree he should not have been killied for his personal visions which irritated the populace. However, in past times agitators were treated differently and with much more harshness.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I supplied a little poem a while ago...written by Kurt Vonnegut. I will post it here again...even though it didn't receive any attention the first time

I can certainly understand why it didn't. But what were you expecting: A round of applause?

"Tiger got to hunt,
Bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder, "Why, why, why?"

Tiger got to sleep,
Bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand."

Whether religious person or scientist...man's got to tell himself he UNDERSTANDS! That's his NATURE.

The problem is that man is darkness itself and has no understanding of spiritual (ultimate) reality.

He is the "Thinking Animal", after all...so, he should be able to unravel all the mysteries concerning his origin, his existence...and even his ultimate destination in the "after-life". The notion that certain knowledge may be unavailable to him hardly enters his mind.

More often than not, more animal than thinker.

You delight when science missteps, Boxcar...because you think that a scientific error is a victory for religion...but that's not true. Even if Darwin is wrong about the origin of our species...that doesn't mean that the biblical version of man's creation is the right one. BOTH versions could easily be wrong.

You finally have said something that makes sense. I agree. But you don't want the version that you're cheerleading for to be wrong, do you? Many here think that science (most especially the forensic type that deals with the issue of origins) is the bastion of truth. Not hardly! Not by a long shot! Many of these forensic scientists have their God-hating agendas and their a priori commitments to materialism. And this kinda clouds their understanding.

I say that science is "flexible", because science relies on scientific theories, and theories evolve...whereas religion remains inflexible...since it relies on the "infallible" word of God.

Well, it is infallible. Sorry you can't understand that! Moreover, if you really want to define "inflexible", you could start with the immutability of God. Never changes one iota.

Science's validity is also easier to grade...since its benefits for society, and its miscalculations, are readily apparent in this lifetime...whereas religion promises a basket of goods which can only be seen in the afterlife.

You mean like the "miscalculations" that life is meaningless and purposeless and that no human being has any intrinsic value, since we all just crawled out of the primordial slime and we are the products of the purposeless, indifferent, unguided and pitiless raw forces of evolution? And then you wonder about the actions of the Hitlers, Pol Pots, Stalins, Maos, Amins, etc, etc, of this world? If the atrocities of these kinds of God-hating men are representative of the benefits of forensic science, then pray tell what have the downsides been? Or have there been any?

It's a nice business to be in...when you sell people the afterlife...and you don't have to deal with any dissatisfied customers?

It's even a better business to be a god in the religion of scientism and collect paychecks every week or month from government grants, etc. just so those gods can sell the people a big bill of goods. And they never have to deal with any dissatisfied customers since they consider the uninitiated to be common lowlifes anyway and never really have to worry about coming into contact with them very often.

Nearly two thousand years ago, Jesus taught that even if men were given proof that God raises the dead, men still would not believe.

Luke 16:28-31
28 for I have five brothers - that he may warn them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'29 "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them,'30 "But he said, 'No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!"31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.'"
NASB

Again, see how ol' Friedrich unwittingly and so ironically gave affirmation to this very passage 19 centuries later! Once again, we see how Special Revelation and Natural Revelation are always in complete harmony.

If one were to prove this God of the Christians to us, we should be even less able to believe in him.

Jesus was way out ahead of the curve on this issue of "proof", wasn't he? There really isn't anything new under the sun.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Greyfox, I enjoy your posts.

But let's remind ourselves not to repeat what others state from lazy research, if at all. The most intellectually honest atheist I have yet to come across is Tim O'Neill:

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2...val-world.html

"About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get some discussion where someone invokes the old "Conflict Thesis" and gets in the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. The hoary standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being garbage. The Galileo Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much about science as it was about Scripture."

I know it's been stated before here that Galileo thought he now had authority to interpret scripture doctrinally.

"Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was."

For argument sake, lets agree that your apologist opinion of Bruno is correct.
Does it justify his torture and murder by the "church" of Christ?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, you asked me to define good and evil, and so I suggested by way of a question if you would consider it a good thing to love our fellow man -- and now you're asking me AGAIN to define good and evil? You're doing a fantastic job of making my argument for me -- that in your kind of athesitic-materialistic universe, there is no real morality. You can't tell us if the 5 events would be best characterized as good or evil. You obviously don't have a clue as to what is good or evil, since you have asked me to define it for you -- apparently not trusting your instincts or knowledge or experience. And now you can't answer my question about whether loving our fellow man could be considered a good thing. I would characterize your inability to address these issues as Absolute Moral Bankruptcy. It appears you have absolutely nothing in your moral bank account from which to make any withdrawals in order to make any meaningful contributions to this topic.

I've given you the opportunity to give your definition of good and evil and you've declined. So be it.

What about the 2004 tsunami which killed 250,000 people? In a non-materialistic universe at least one deity must exist. That's by definition. If only one deity exists, and it is anthropomorphic, then the 2004 tsunami was evil and the murder of 250,000 human beings must be laid at his door.

In a materialistic universe the 2004 event was the result of natural forces and was neither good nor evil. It just happened.

If a woman has sex with a man, then immediately kills him, butchers him and eats his flesh then we would all agree that was evil. But when a black widow spider has sex with a mate, then kills and eats its mate, is it evil. No. It's just being a black widow spider, and that's they do. It's a behavior pattern that natural selection has favored as a viable survival trait.

If a man walks into a village, kills a child and runs off with the body, that's evil. If a tiger does the same thing, it's not evil. The tiger is a predator and cannot distinguish the child from other prey such as a wild piglet. Of course the villagers will immediately form a posse and hunt the tiger down and kill it. The villagers may see the tiger as evil, but the underlying reason for their action is that they correctly see the tiger as a threat to be eliminated. We did not get to the top of the food chain by letting other species eat us.

I must conclude that the very concept of good and evil is meaningless outside human experience. They do not exist in my materialistic universe, at least not in the sense that the good v. evil dichotomy is some kind or "force", for lack of a better word.


PART II

The concepts of good and evil are meaningless outside the human experience, nonetheless, within the human experience they are very real, and their source is evolution.

At this point I direct your attention to Dawkins' The God Delusion, Chapter 6, THE ROOTS OF MORALITY: WHY ARE WE GOOD? I doubt that Dawkins' definition of “morality” fits boxcars. Since I doubt that boxcar will read it I would post the entire thing here, but it's over 25 pages long and doing so would probably not fall within “fair use”. And doing so would probably take me two or three days.

Given boxcar's apparent reluctance to read anything that is not nihil obstat, least he be tempted into sin by reason, here is my brief, probably inadequate, summary.

Good and evil are manifestations of the human trait of altruism. (This trait has also been observed in lower animals and across species.) Altruism is behavior by an individual which benefits another, often at the expense of said individual. Most of us are altruistic at birth and remain so throughout our lives. There are exceptions which I will address shortly. We will all rush to the aid of an individual in distress, particularly when the distressed individual is a child or someone who is helpless to one degree or another. “Good” is altruistic behavior, particularly when carried out to a greater degree than normal.

On the other hand “evil” is behavior that is the opposite of altruism. Since evil is part of the human experience it must be carried out by humans. The question is why are some humans evil? There is no one single pat answer.


PART III

Some reasons why some people are not altruistic, or are less altruistic than most. This list is by no means exhaustive.

• Sociopathy – some people seem to be born without altruism or somehow lose it in later life. They have no love for their fellow man. Some are (or become) psychopaths and enjoy hurting others. Jeffrey Dahlmer was such.
• Abuse – some suffer abuse, possibly from caregivers, and adapt to the situation by rejecting altruism. Aileen Wuornos was such.
• Nationalism – everyone is part of many groups: family, school, fraternal order, and of course their country. When the group sees other groups as rivals, members will be encouraged and/or trained not to treat members of the other group or groups with altruism. Armies regularly indoctrinate their troops to regard the enemy as subhuman. The enemy is always “the gooks”, “the krauts”, “the nips”, “the barbarians”, etc.

PART IV

So altruism is the source of good and evil. Altruism = good, lack of altruism = evil. Why are people altruistic? The answer is evolution. Altruism provides a survival advantage and so natural selection favors altruistic behavior. To fully understand this we must remember that individuals do not evolve; populations evolve. A population which behaves altruistically is almost certainly a population that cooperates in activities that benefit the population as a whole, e.g., hunting and gathering.

(to be continued in a future post)

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Jesus was way out ahead of the curve on this issue of "proof", wasn't he?

"If you'd come today you could have reached a whole nation.
"Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication."

Originally Posted by boxcar

There really isn't anything new under the sun.

Printing press, photography, video, literacy of the masses. If he had to come in 4 B.C. he could at least have come to China where more people could read.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Greyfox, I enjoy your posts.

But let's remind ourselves not to repeat what others state from lazy research, if at all. The most intellectually honest atheist I have yet to come across is Tim O'Neill:

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2...val-world.html

"About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get some discussion where someone invokes the old "Conflict Thesis" and gets in the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. The hoary standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being garbage. The Galileo Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much about science as it was about Scripture."

I know it's been stated before here that Galileo thought he now had authority to interpret scripture doctrinally.

You are obviously a highly educated man...so you must know the manner in which Bruno died...and the torture that he endured before his ultimate demise. We see what you think of Bruno, and his scientific credentials. What have you to say about the Church which put him to death?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Actually, in 200 B.C. Aristarchus of Samos proposed the heliocentric theory. Also, other non-Earth centered models had been proposed around the same time (such as Philolaus’ ‘central fire’ model, which postulated all of the bodies in the universe revolved around a central fire – the fire isn’t the sun – in 390 BCE). Scientists had also figured out that the Earth must rotate to account for the fact that the stars ‘move’ around us.

Aristotle refuted these theories, providing three common sense arguments against a non-Earth centered model. These arguments are:

1) If the Earth was spinning, why don’t objects fly off the Earth?

2) If the Earth was moving around the sun, why doesn’t leave flying birds behind?

3) and finally, If the Earth was in orbit around the Sun, why don’t we see a parallax effect seen in the stars?

the laws of motion, were not understood, until Newton in the 17th century, nearly 19 century.

Galileo could not refute Aristotle's arguments no more than the earlier proposers of a heliocentric theory. Aristotle's position on a geocentric system was the accepted science of the time, due to Ptolemy's system of predicting the position of the planets.

Galileo could not prove his revival of heliocentric universe, that is why it was not initially, accepted by scientists or Christianity. Contrary to your statement Galileo's theory was not obvious, since this theory had been refuted by Aristotle and the acceptance of Ptolemy's system as setttled science at that time.

For the heliocentric theory to be true, Galileo would have had to prove there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. Galileo, could not prove this parallax shift, no more than Aristarchus could. Galileo, nor anyone else, had the tools to observe this shift. Also, Galileo's theory was incomplete regarding orbits.

Without observable proof, a necessity of the scientific method, he was guessing according to the settled science at that time. Galileo made his own trouble in the scientific community for promoting the revived theory as a fact.

Christians, in not believing Galileo's theory did not reject an obvious observation, as you suggest, but embraced settled science of the time, based on non-Christian teachings of Aristotle and Ptolemy.

When Copernicus published his theory of a heliocentric universe, it was embraced and, in fact, his work was dedicated to Pope Paul III.

When the heliocentric system was proven as scientific fact, the Roman Catholic Church accepted the proven science. However, as boxcar said the protestant sector acted differently and rejected science in favor of a literal reading of Genesis.

Here is a link about Geocentrism to heliocentrismhttp://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/from-geocentrism-to-heliocentrism/

Quick...who came first, Copernicus or Galileo? No checking with Wikipedia now...

You say Galileo was incapable of refuting the egocentric cosmological belief of that time period...and that the Church embraced the heliocentric theory, when Copernicus published it.

The only problem, of course, is that Copernicus died BEFORE Galileo was born. Copernicus published his theory in 1543...and Galileo was born in 1564. So...how could Copernicus have published something which Galileo was unable to prove? How could the Roman Catholic Church have "embraced" Copernicus...but rejected Galileo?

See what happens when you are hasty in gathering your "facts"?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You said:

And I told you why Galileo could not refute the Church's belief in settled science of the time that it was geocentric? His observation was not obvious nor unique and been refuted by Aristotle centuries earlier. Maybe, he refuted based on knowing he could not scientifically prove his theory as fact and wanted to avoid the wrath of his scientific peers.

When it became obvious to scientists most Christians, except protestants, accepted it like rational beings.

Bruno was not a scientist, that was his problem. However, I agree he should not have been killied for his personal visions which irritated the populace. However, in past times agitators were treated differently and with much more harshness.

I've already pointed out your mistake in the Copernicus/Galileo debate...and I am eagerly awaiting to see if you still think that those Roman Catholics were "rational beings".

[Show Me the Wire]

Thask,

I saw my mistake but, it was too late to edit it. The mistake was due to editing of a sentence and using my tablet for such a long response. My editing mistake about later does not change the substance. Galileo did not prove the earth revolved around the sun. The Roman Church did not reject scientific proof to cling to the idea the sun and planets revolved around the earth, which is your point. The settled science was based on Aristotle's refutation of the theory that the earth revolved around the sun and Ptolemy's system centuries before Galileo.

The Church actually followed and accepted the settled science of the time period. When Copernicus' theory was proven, which was not proven by Galileo, the Church accepted the proof.

And yes the Church accepted Copernicus's theory as a theory, not as fact. Galileo tried to say his theory was a fact based on Copernicus' theory. Also, the Church accepted what Galileo said as a theory, not a theolgical fact. It was Galileo's insistence to make it a theological fact which led to the controversy.

Also before Galileo, Johannes Kepler published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.

So yes, I stand by my original statement that Church acted reasonably, when the heliocentric theory was actually proven.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Thask,

I saw my mistake but, it was too late to edit it. The mistake was due to editing of a sentence and using my tablet for such a long response. My editing mistake about later does not change the substance. Galileo did not prove the earth revolved around the sun. The Roman Church did not reject scientific proof to cling to the idea the sun and planets revolved around the earth, which is your point. The settled science was based on Aristotle's refutation of the theory that the earth revolved around the sun and Ptolemy's system centuries before Galileo.

The Church actually followed and accepted the settled science of the time period. When Copernicus' theory was proven, which was not proven by Galileo, the Church accepted the proof.

And yes the Church accepted Copernicus's theory as a theory, not as fact. Galileo tried to say his theory was a fact based on Copernicus' theory. Also, the Church accepted what Galileo said as a theory, not a theolgical fact. It was Galileo's insistence to make it a theological which led to the controversy.

So yes, I stand by my original statement that Church acted reasonably, when the heliocentric theory was actually proven.

Nonsense. It is obvious that you had no idea that Copernicus died before Galileo was born...your ignorance about this is written all over not one...but TWO of your posts. And you also have no idea that Galileo provided MOUNTAINOUS observational evidence to support his heliocentric theory. It is equally obvious that you still have no idea that Copernicus's cosmological theories weren't taken seriously until Galileo, Kepler and Newton came along...many years later.

I am supplying another link that I think you'll appreciate. Please read to the end...so you can be told of the "mountainous observational evidence" which Galileo provided to support his view that the earth traveled around the sun.

Your assertion that the Roman Catholic Church still acted "reasonably", in spite of your startling chronological mistake regarding Galileo and Copernicus, proves what I had long suspected about you. You are nothing but an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church...posing as a student of history.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/f...heliocentrism/

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Nonsense. It is obvious that you had no idea that Copernicus died before Galileo was born...your ignorance about this is written all over not one...but TWO of your posts. And you also have no idea that Galileo provided MOUNTAINOUS observational evidence to support his heliocentric theory. It is equally obvious that you still have no idea that Copernicus's cosmological theories weren't taken seriously until Galileo, Kepler and Newton came along...many years later.

I am supplying another link that I think you'll appreciate. Please read to the end...so you can be told of the "mountainous observational evidence" which Galileo provided to support his view that the earth traveled around the sun.

Your assertion that the Roman Catholic Church still acted "reasonably", in spite of your startling chronological mistake regarding Galileo and Copernicus, proves what I had long suspected about you. You are nothing but an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church...posing as a student of history.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/f...heliocentrism/

Yes, I did know Copernicus came first. It was an editing mistake. I reffered you to a link
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/f...heliocentrism/ which plainly states the first theory was proposed by Aristarchus and refuted by Aristotle. It also states Aristotle's and Ptolmey's view the sun revolved around the earth was the accepted scientific fact. Also, Newton is the key due to his laws of motion.

But believe whatever you want. But remember Galileo, Kleper and Newton validated Copernicus. When his work was valdated it was accepted as a scientific fact. Galileo, provided mountains of observation, but he did not have the tools to prove the Parallax effect, nor did he provide the math needed from Newton. There was nothing obvious in Galileo's work to overturn the scientific view that the sun revolved arond the earth.

Galileo by himself proved nothing, he supplied observational data for a theory which was already accepted as a theory by the Church. Nothing was obvious as you claimed until Newton.

Btw the link you supplied is the link, I gave you in my original post. I know what is in that link because I cited first to you. That link clearly states Copernicus came before Galileo. I told you I made an editing mistake.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yes, I did know Copernicus came first. It was an editing mistake. I reffered you to a link
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/f...heliocentrism/ which plainly states the first theory was proposed by Aristarchus and refuted by Aristotle. It also states Aristotle's and Ptolmey's view the sun revolved around the earth was the accepted scientific fact. Also, Newton is the key due to his laws of motion.

But believe whatever you want. But remember Galileo, Kleper and Newton validated Copernicus. When his work was valdated it was accepted as a scientific fact. Galileo, provided mountains of observation, but he did not have the tools to prove the Parallax effect, nor did he provide the math needed from Newton. There was nothing obvious in Galileo's work to overturn the scientific view that the sun revolved arond the earth.

Galileo by himself proved nothing, he supplied observational data for a theory which was already accepted as a theory by the Church. Nothing was obvious as you claimed until Newton.

I don't believe you. Re-read your post #17501...and tell me how this could be just a simple editing mistake. It is obvious throughout that post of yours that you believed Copernicus came AFTER Galileo. And again in post #17508, you repeat that Galileo was unable to prove something that was proven by a man who had died long before Galileo was born. ANOTHER editing mistake? Come on...

Yes...you read that link that you provided. But in your haste to come back here and prove to us how smart you really are...you misread the article, and thought that COPERNICUS was the guy who validated Galileo...when it was the reverse all along. Unfortunately for you...the article doesn't clearly point out that Galileo was born 21 years AFTER Copernicus died.

This wasn't just an "editing mistake". This is what sometimes happens when a poster depends only on a hasty online search for his debating material.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't believe you. Re-read your post #17501...and tell me how this could be just a simple editing mistake. It is obvious throughout that post of yours that you believed Copernicus came AFTER Galileo. And again in post #17508, you repeat that Galileo was unable to prove something that was proven by a man who had died long before Galileo was born. ANOTHER editing mistake? Come on...

Yes...you read that link that you provided. But in your haste to come back here and prove to us how smart you really are...you misread the article, and thought that COPERNICUS was the guy who validated Galileo...when it was the reverse all along. Unfortunately for you...the article doesn't clearly point out that Galileo was born 21 years AFTER Copernicus died.

This wasn't just an "editing mistake". This is what sometimes happens when a poster depends only on a hasty online search for his debating material.

Yes editing, too much cutting and pasting. If you don't think I know Copernicus came before Galileo, look at my post 13672 responding to Actor. You brought up Galileo before about when the Church officially accepted the heliocentric theory.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...hlight=Galileo

I responded to Actor saying why Galileo got in trouble with the Church. Actor thought the Church accepted Copernicus' theory when he published it. Which the Church did as a theory, but not a fact ( which was not in my post to Actor) but it was established Galileo came after Copernicus and Galileo got in trouble for trying to interpret Scripture, not because of his observations.

The Church accepted the theory from the beginning as a theory and accepted it as a scientific fact way before the Church officially pronounced it a fact.