Giordano Bruno. Martyr to Astronomy.

Its a good thing they still dont burn people at the post for dissagreeing with them. :lol:
If you want another reason, how about the present Popes acceptance of this "intelligent design" crapology..... every religion has its flaws.

If you want another reason, how about the present Popes acceptance of this "intelligent design" crapology..... every religion has its flaws.

Whats he said this time?

Another article on Bruno www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm

Also his Wikipedia entry has this to say:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Although the primary charge against Bruno was docetism, (adherence to the doctrine that Jesus did not actually have a physical body and that his physical presence was an illusion), and despite the fact that his theoretical work cannot be considered scientific, some authors have claimed Bruno as a "martyr of science". They see a parallel between his persecution and the Galileo affair, asserting that even though, unlike Galileo, Bruno's theological beliefs were a factor in his heresy trial, Bruno's Copernicanism was also a factor.

But the above "connection" may be exaggerated, or even plainly false. For example: according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "…in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When…Bruno…was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."[2] In fact, the precise charges of heresy on which Bruno was finally condemned are unknown, as the official record has long been lost. The role (if any) of his heliocentric teachings and belief in an infinite universe is not a matter that can be conclusively proved on either side.

If you want another reason, how about the present Popes acceptance of this "intelligent design" crapology..... every religion has its flaws.

Whats he said this time?

have a look at
www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19838_1.html

have a look at
www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19838_1.html

Having it as a topic for a symposium doesn't imply a change, nor does replacing the head of an observatory. Getting the major voices of opinion together to talk about the topic on a theological basis I'd have thought was a positive thing. Or do we just want to burn upside down the people we disagree with?

Seems the story was mainly speculation. The proceedings of the conference are to be made availble later in the year, but attendees say there is no change to the current view. www.cathnews.com/news/609/36.php

The minutes will show how Catholic theologians see no contradiction between their belief in divine creation and the scientific theory of evolution, participants told reporters at the end of the meeting.

We'll see I guess.

So why was the head of the vatican observatory replaced after he spoke out against intelligent design?
Was it that he broke protocol, was it the way he said it or what he said?