DOCSLIB.ORG

Intelligent Design: the New

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intelligent Design: the New A Guide to the Creationism/Evolution Controversy This website provides information and online resources to help improve public education and understanding of evolution. "It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe". - Richard Dawkins, 1996 This site was launched to commemorate the Darwin Year in 2009 (200 years since Darwin was born and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species). If you are interested in translating the content into another language or providing educational slide presentations to post on this website, please contact us. © 2009, Dustin J. Penn Introduction: Why Evolution Matters "Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going." - Michael Shermer, 20061 It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin published his book, On the Origin of Species2, and yet the public still does not generally accept evolution or understand why it is so scientifically important. Darwin achieved two major accomplishments in his book, both of which were revolutionary. First, Darwin presented a massive amount of evidence from a wide variety of disciplines to show that evolution is a fact. Species change over time. The fact of evolution is no longer debated among scientists, as the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Second, Darwin also suggested a theory, he called "natural selection," to explain how life evolves. His theory not only explains how the diversity of species has arisen, but also the complex, design-like properties of organisms. Scientists generally accept Darwin's theory, as well as the fact of evolution, as it has also stood up to testing for decades. Darwin's theory of evolution has completely revolutionized our understanding of the life, and our place in the nature. For many scientists and scholars, Darwin's theory is "the single best idea that anyone has ever had."3 Today, evolution provides the conceptual foundation that integrates all of the biological sciences, including genetics, molecular and cell biology, developmental biology, physiology, behavioral biology, ecology, and paleontology. Evolutionary biology is increasing being integrated into the social sciences, as it is central for efforts to understand human origins and behavior. Evolution has many practical implications and it has contributed to important advances in applied sciences. In the biomedical sciences, evolution plays an increasing role in research on HIV, Charles Darwin influenza, and other infectious diseases, and in the discovery of genes that cause disease and treatments. Evolution has been critical for understanding the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics and other drugs. Evolution has contributed to advances in agriculture, such as development of crops and livestock and pest management (the evolution of pesticide resistance). Evolution even influences research in biotechnology, and fields outside of the life sciences, including the development of computer technologies and information sciences (evolutionary algorithms). Thus, the scientific debate over evolution was settled long ago, and the only controversies remaining are political debates over whether evolution, creationism, or both should be taught in public school science classes. Although scientists accept evolution, a significant proportion of the public does not. This is largely due to poor scientific literacy, religious fundamentalism, and creationists' political efforts. Creationists in the USA have given up on trying to ban teaching evolution in schools, and their attempts to get Genesis taught as an alternative to evolution have also been defeated. In recent years, however, a new, more sophisticated version of creationism, called "intelligent design" (ID), is being portrayed as a scientific alternative to evolution. ID advocates utilize the language of science, but it is not science. It is just another attempt by creationists to insert their religious beliefs into science classrooms. In fact, ID was concocted as a deliberate attempt to circumvent laws in the USA that ban teaching creationism in public schools (the US Constitution prevents the state from promoting any particular religion). ID is a classic example of the public being misled by pseudoscientific claims. The most disturbing aspect of ID is its ultimate goal: to replace all sciences and secular views that are incompatible with Christian beliefs and values. An US Court has ruled against teaching ID creationism as science in public schools, but nevertheless, ID has spread to Europe and has become a global movement. Why does evolution matter? The bottom line is that evolutionary biology - and all sciences - critically depends upon avoiding interference from religious and political groups deciding what is and what is not taught as science. This is why scientists and educators are so strongly opposed to teaching ID and other forms of creationism, and why many are concerned that the future of science itself is at stake. To address the widespread misunderstandings of evolution, scientists, educators and governments are responding with numerous efforts to improve the public understanding of evolution. Science educators are trying new ways of teaching evolution, so that students can distinguish between science versus ID and other pseudosciences. Instead of avoiding the topic of creationism, more science educators are beginning to "teach the controversy."4 The Council of Europe has condemned efforts to introduce creationism into European schools, and urged its member governments to promote oppose creationism.5 Like Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama, many religious groups have voiced their support for evolution, and their opposition to efforts to teach creationism as science6 (signed by 10,876 people as of 31 Aug. 2007). In summary, evolution is more firmly established in science than the public realizes. Darwin's ideas have completely revolutionized our understanding of where we came from, who we are, and our place in nature. They have also provided many practical applications, and helped to make advances in agricultural, biomedical, and computational sciences. Yet, because evolution undermines some religious beliefs, it is strongly opposed by creationists, and they have managed to help maintain the public's doubts about evolution. The opposition to evolution is often based on common myths and misconceptions, and especially the myth that evolution is scientifically still in question, or "just a theory." The only controversy is whether religious groups should be allowed to dictate what is and what is not taught as science. Scientists and educators are trying to improve the public understanding of evolution, and redress the many misconceptions. Most prominent religious leaders and organizations also agree that creationism should not be taught as science. The most important lesson from this controversy is that science is a precious gift, and the greatest accomplishment of human intellect for solving nature's mysteries. We should not take it for granted or allow it to be dictated by religious groups that object to its findings. Significant improvements in scientific literacy are badly needed to keep science alive, and to help solve the increasing number of difficult and complex problems we face in the 21st century. The other sections of this website provide more information about these issues and more in greater detail. Link and References References 1. Shermer, M. (2006): Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design. New York, Times Books 2006. 2. Darwin, Ch. (1859): The Origin of Species. London, John Murray 1859. 3. Dennett, D. (1995): Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York, Simon & Schuster 1995, 21. 4. Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Working Group on Teaching Evolution. National Academy Press 5. Council of Europe (2007): Council of Europe states must 'firmly oppose' the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline. Council of Europe Autumn Session 1-5 Oct. 2007. 6. Zimmerman, M. (2008): An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science to declare their support for evolution. © 2009, Dustin J. Penn I. Public Acceptance of Evolution "These results should be troubling for science educators at all levels." – Miller et al., 2006, p. 7661 Summary Evolution is accepted as a well-established fact among scientists, but in many countries the public remains skeptical. A recent poll of 10,000 adults across 10 countries around the world found that on average only 54% agree that there is enough scientific evidence to support Darwin's theory, and in 4 of these countries the skeptics are a majority (i.e., Russia, USA, South Africa, and Egypt).2 Public acceptance of evolution is surprisingly low in many European countries, though not as low as the USA. Several factors contribute to low public acceptance of evolution, including poor scientific literacy, religious fundamentalism, and political activities of creationists. This section provides information about the public acceptance of evolution, especially in Europe and the USA. Outline 1. International Survey 2. USA 3. Muslim Countries 4. Reasons for Opposition 5. Improving Public Understanding 1. International Survey A large international survey of 34 countries recently found that the acceptance of evolution is generally higher in Europe than the USA; however, there is much variation among European countries, and some have
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Patternicity and Persuasion: Evolutionary Biology As a Bridge Between Economic and Narrative Analysis in the Law
    PATTERNICITY AND PERSUASION: EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN ECONOMIC AND NARRATIVE ANALYSIS IN THE LAW James D. Ridgway* ―We are not Homo sapiens, Wise Man . We are Pan narrans, the storytelling ape.‖1 A defining characteristic of humanity is our pervasive use of tools to solve problems. Legal theory is an endeavor with its own toolbox: methods of construction and deconstruction that are applied to a huge spectrum of problems. In recent years, economics has been one of the law‘s dominant analytical tools, and evolutionary biology has rapidly increased in its usage.2 Narrative theory—the study of storytelling and how it influences the decision-making process3—is far less discussed as a tool of legal analysis, but has its own adherents. Although these tools are clearly useful, their foundations and persuasive power have not been fully explored. As demonstrated by this article, evolutionary biology can now explain how human beings instinctively approach legal analysis and what features from economic and narrative analysis are rooted in the information processing functions of the brain. As a result, the most effective aspects of each can be synthesized into a new tool: analysis of the archetypal interactions that can be used to dissect any legal problem. On the surface, these tools may appear to be distinct. Yet, the connections between economics, narrative theory, and evolution run deep. Charles Darwin was aware of the power of narratives, and historians agree * Professorial Lecturer in Law, the George Washington University School of Law. This paper was presented at the Twelfth Society for Evolutionary Analysis in Law Scholarship Conference at the Loyola Law School-Los Angeles in February 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Brant Shermer
    Curriculum Vitae Michael Brant Shermer 2761 N. Marengo Ave., Altadena, CA 91001 626/794-3119 (P), 626/794-1301 (F), [email protected] Education Ph.D. Claremont Graduate School: 1991 History of Science (Dissertation: Alfred Russel Wallace: Heretic Scientist. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Information Service) M.A. California State University, Fullerton: 1978 Experimental Psychology B.A. Pepperdine University: 1976 Psychology/Biology Professional Positions 2010 – Present: Presidential Fellow, Chapman University 2007 - 2011: Adjunct Professor, Claremont Graduate University 1992 - Present: Founding Publisher/Editor-in-Chief, Skeptic magazine 1992 - Present: Executive Director, Skeptics Society 2015 - Present: Host, Science Salon Podcast 2001 - 2019: Contributing Editor and Monthly Columnist, Scientific American 1992 - 2015: Host, Skeptics Lecture Series at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) 1998 - 2010: Science Correspondent, KPCC, 89.3 FM, NPR affiliate for L.A. 1999 - 2000 Consulting Producer/Host, Exploring the Unknown 13-hour TV series, Fox Family 1989 - 1998 Adjunct Professor, Cultural Studies Program, Occidental College 1991 - 1993 Adjunct Professor, History of Science, California State University, Los Angeles 1986 - 1991 Assistant Professor of Psychology, Glendale College 1980 - 1986 Instructor of Psychology, Glendale College Courses Taught Chapman University (2010-Present): Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist Honors Seminar: The Moral Arc of Science Honors Seminar: Evolution, Ethics, and Morality Claremont Graduate University (2007-2011): Evolution, Economics, and the Brain Science and Morality Occidental College (1989-1998): 1. Science: Its History and Impact from Copernicus to Einstein 2. Evolution: The History and Science of the Theory 3. European Intellectual and Cultural History 4. Science, Technology, and Culture (Core program team-taught course) 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals
    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Behe and the “Limits” of Evolution (Bacterial Edition). James Downard - 18 July 2014
    Michael Behe and the “Limits” of Evolution (bacterial edition). James Downard - 18 July 2014 During the Kitzmiller v. Dover Intelligent Design trial in 2005, the Expert Testimony of Michael Behe (2005a) came under fire. One of the lynchpin figures in the design movement, famed for Darwin’s Black Box, his crash-and-burn performance has been amply covered in many venues, including popular coverage by Matthew Chapman (2007) and Laurie Lebo (2008). Overlooked in the heat over irreducibly complex bacterial flagella mousetraps (and whether Behe and Ken Miller would duel with lab beakers at dawn) was a minor technical issue tossed off in Behe’s deposition and afterward, which warrants examination for the insights it gives to Behe’s use of technical citation and the degree to which he investigates the strength of the ammunition he slips into his ID shotgun. Venturing into the finer points of bacterial antibiotic resistance, Behe was bowled over by the import of Barry Hall (2004a): “In Vitro Evolution Predicts that the IMP-1 Metallo-β-Lactamase Does Not Have the Potential To Evolve Increased Activity against Imipenem.” To emphasize this “limit of Darwinian evolution” Behe included a full reprint of it for the Dover court, where one could see that he had drawn a big circle around the “Not” in the title. Arbitrarily deck-stacking his point further by asserting that evolutionists think “Darwinian processes can do everything,” Behe (2005a) summarized Hall’s findings thus: This is exemplified in some recent papers from the laboratory of Professor Barry G. Hall at the University of Rochester.
    [Show full text]
  • And Then God Created Kansas--The Evolution/Creationism Debate In
    COMMENTS AND THEN GOD CREATED KANSAS? THE EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM DEBATE IN AMERICA'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS MARJORIE GEORGE' "For most Kansans, there really is no conflict between science and religion. Our churches have helped us search for spiritual truth, and our schools have helped us understand the natural world." -Brad Williamson, biology teacher at Olathe East High School in Olathe, Kansas.' INTRODUCTION Kansas has recently become embroiled in a fierce debate over the minds of the state's children, specifically regarding what those children will learn in their public school science classrooms. At first glance, a science curriculum does not seem like a subject of great controversy, but it continues to be one in Kansas and other communities across the country. The controversy hinges specifically on the role evolution should play in science classrooms, but also reflects the broader debate over what role schools should play in students' moral development. Today many parents are worried about sending their children to t BA. 1993, Washington University; J.D. Candidate 2001, University of Pennsylania. Thank you to Sarah Barringer Gordon for her initial advice and editorial comments, and Tracey George for her always helpful comments, as well as her thirty years of encouragement and inspiration. A very special thanks to Jonathan Petty tor alwa)s believing in me and providing unwavering support for my decision to attend law school and of my numerous pursuits during law school. Finally, thank you to all of the Penn Law Review editors for their hard work on this and every article. I Brad Williamson, I Teach, Therefore I IVor7, in Kansas, WASH.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design: Is It Really Worth It?
    Leaven Volume 17 Issue 2 Theology and Science Article 6 1-1-2009 Intelligent Design: Is It Really Worth It? Chris Doran [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Doran, Chris (2009) "Intelligent Design: Is It Really Worth It?," Leaven: Vol. 17 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol17/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Doran: Intelligent Design: Is It Really Worth It? Intelligent Design: Is It Really Worth It? CHRIS DORAN imaginethatwe have all had occasion to look up into the sky on a clear night, gaze at the countless stars, and think about how small we are in comparison to the enormity of the universe. For everyone except Ithe most strident atheist (although I suspect that even s/he has at one point considered the same feeling), staring into space can be a stark reminder that the universe is much grander than we could ever imagine, which may cause us to contemplate who or what might have put this universe together. For believers, looking up at tJotestars often puts us into the same spirit of worship that must have filled the psalmist when he wrote, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalms 19.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Vatican Observatory N E W S L E T T
    vatican observatory NEWSLETTER Spring 2012 embracing, encouraging and promoting scientific study VOF Honors Benefactors at Circles of Giving Awards Dinner DID YOU KNOW? German Jesuit Christoph Cla- vius’s viewing of the total solar eclipse of 1560 made him de- cide that astronomy would be his life's work? He went on to write numerous textbooks and Rich Friedrich and Peter Moore was the senior mathematician on Fr. DiUlio and Marianne Augustine of the Pacific Western Foundation the commission for the reform of On February 24, 2012, the Vatican Observatory Foundation honored friends and benefactors who have so the calendar in 1582. The Vatican generously supported the work of the Vatican Observatory over time. Each year as donors reach a certain Observatory Foundation rec- lifetime giving level, they achieve a Circle of Giving designation and are recognized and thanked publicly ognizes his contribution to the by the President and Board of Directors as well as their fellow benefactors and friends. Each Circle of Giv- field by welcoming benefactors of ing is named in honor of one of the exceptional individuals connected with astronomy, the Society of Jesus $10,000 to the Christoph Clavius and the Vatican Observatory. At this year’s dinner four honorees were present to receive awards from Circle of Giving. Foundation President Fr. Albert J. DiUlio, S.J., and Board Chairman, Richard J. Friedrich. They included Christoph Clavius Bill Ahmanson of The Ahmanson Foundation; Marianne Augustine; Peter Moore of the Pacific Western Foundation; and Dan Cracchiolo of The Steele Foundation, whose award was accepted by his sister, Rose Collins.
    [Show full text]
  • Archons (Commanders) [NOTICE: They Are NOT Anlien Parasites], and Then, in a Mirror Image of the Great Emanations of the Pleroma, Hundreds of Lesser Angels
    A R C H O N S HIDDEN RULERS THROUGH THE AGES A R C H O N S HIDDEN RULERS THROUGH THE AGES WATCH THIS IMPORTANT VIDEO UFOs, Aliens, and the Question of Contact MUST-SEE THE OCCULT REASON FOR PSYCHOPATHY Organic Portals: Aliens and Psychopaths KNOWLEDGE THROUGH GNOSIS Boris Mouravieff - GNOSIS IN THE BEGINNING ...1 The Gnostic core belief was a strong dualism: that the world of matter was deadening and inferior to a remote nonphysical home, to which an interior divine spark in most humans aspired to return after death. This led them to an absorption with the Jewish creation myths in Genesis, which they obsessively reinterpreted to formulate allegorical explanations of how humans ended up trapped in the world of matter. The basic Gnostic story, which varied in details from teacher to teacher, was this: In the beginning there was an unknowable, immaterial, and invisible God, sometimes called the Father of All and sometimes by other names. “He” was neither male nor female, and was composed of an implicitly finite amount of a living nonphysical substance. Surrounding this God was a great empty region called the Pleroma (the fullness). Beyond the Pleroma lay empty space. The God acted to fill the Pleroma through a series of emanations, a squeezing off of small portions of his/its nonphysical energetic divine material. In most accounts there are thirty emanations in fifteen complementary pairs, each getting slightly less of the divine material and therefore being slightly weaker. The emanations are called Aeons (eternities) and are mostly named personifications in Greek of abstract ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]
  • Clearing the Highest Hurdle: Human-Based Case Studies Broaden Students’ Knowledge of Core Evolutionary Concepts
    The Journal of Effective Teaching an online journal devoted to teaching excellence Clearing the highest hurdle: Human-based case studies broaden students’ knowledge of core evolutionary concepts Alexander J. Werth1 Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943 Abstract An anonymous survey instrument was used for a ten year study to gauge college student attitudes toward evolution. Results indicate that students are most likely to accept evolu- tion as a historical process for change in physical features of non-human organisms. They are less likely to accept evolution as an ongoing process that shapes all traits (including biochemical, physiological, and behavioral) in humans. Students who fail to accept the factual nature of human evolution do not gain an accurate view of evolution, let alone modern biology. Fortunately, because of students’ natural curiosity about their bodies and related topics (e.g., medicine, vestigial features, human prehistory), a pedagogical focus on human evolution provides a fun and effective way to teach core evolutionary concepts, as quantified by the survey. Results of the study are presented along with useful case studies involving human evolution. Keywords: Survey, pedagogy, biology, evolution, Darwin. All science educators face pedagogical difficulties, but when considering the social rami- fications of scientific ideas, few face as great a challenge as biology teachers. Studies consistently show more than half of Americans reject any concept of biological evolution (Harris Poll, 2005, Miller et al., 2006). Students embody just such a cross-section of soci- ety. Much ink has been spilled explaining how best to teach evolution, particularly to unwilling students (Cavallo and McCall, 2008, Nelson, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • The Specola Vaticana: Astronomy at the Vatican
    Organizations, People and Strategies in Astronomy 2 (OPSA 2), 217-230 Ed. A. Heck, © 2013 Venngeist. THE SPECOLA VATICANA: ASTRONOMY AT THE VATICAN GUY CONSOLMAGNO AND CHRISTOPHER CORBALLY Specola Vaticana V-00120, Vatican City State [email protected] [email protected] Abstract. The Vatican is an independent nation, with its own national astronomical observatory, the Specola Vaticana (Vatican Observatory). As- tronomy has been supported at the Vatican since the 1582 reform of the calendar; the present-day Observatory has been in operation since 1891. The work of the observatory is divided between two sites, one in the pa- pal summer gardens south of Rome, Italy, and the other affiliated with the Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona, in Tucson, Arizona, USA. Research undertaken by current staff members ranges from cosmol- ogy and the study of galactic evolution to meteoritics and meteors. Given the stable funding provided by the Vatican, the Observatory has specialized in long-term mapping and cataloguing projects that would be difficult to mount under a traditional three-year funding cycle. These have included participation in the Carte du Ciel photographic map of the sky; the at- lases of spectra produced by its Spectrochemical Laboratory; surveys of star clusters and peculiar stars; and the cataloguing of meteorite physical properties. 1. Astronomy in the Holy See Before 1891 To the Christian church, the study of creation has long been supported as an act of worshipping the Creator. Astronomy was one of the seven subjects that made up the curriculum of the medieval universities, which were themselves founded by the Church.
    [Show full text]