History of science
Download
1 / 52

History of Science - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 544 Views
  • Updated On :

History of Science. It all starts with the Greeks. The Ancient Greeks are seen, in the west, as our intellectual forefathers. From Greece was born philosophy, drama, western artistic aesthetics, geometry, etc., etc., etc.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'History of Science' - lotus


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

It all starts with the greeks
It all starts with the Greeks

The Ancient Greeks are seen, in the west, as our intellectual forefathers. From Greece was born philosophy, drama, western artistic aesthetics, geometry, etc., etc., etc.

Theology was never an important aspect of Greek thought and Orthodoxy was practically anathema.


History of science

Ancient Greek society did not have a permanent priestly class that imposed dogma.

Greek Gods & Goddesses were NOT omnipotent nor omniscient.


Aristotle 384 322 bce
Aristotle class that imposed dogma.(384-322 BCE)

  • Tutor to Alex the Great

  • Scala Natura

  • His philosophy later adopted by the Christian West

  • Founded the Lyceum, (peripatetic school) which emphasized natural philosophy.


History of science

  • Aristotle created a hierarchy of all living things, from simple to more complex. Although he did not mean to imply evolution, it nevertheless ranked all of creation from great to small.

  • This later became the “Great Chain of Being” – a hierarchically ordered system with God & angels at the top, progressing downward from more to lesser developed (moral/perfect) beings.


Ptolemy
Ptolemy simple to more complex. Although he did not mean to imply evolution, it nevertheless ranked all of creation from great to small.

  • Created a Geocentric model of the universe.

  • This worked pretty well for a long time – especially for planets. But, eventually, errors would be detected (once math & technology developed more).


Greek civilization
Greek Civilization simple to more complex. Although he did not mean to imply evolution, it nevertheless ranked all of creation from great to small.

  • It is difficult to underestimate the contributions of Greek philosophy, science, art, literature, etc. to our Western way of thinking. Although they were “pagans” (as later Christians would think), much Greek thought was incorporated into the Christian European tradition. Nevertheless, the sense of curiosity that drove Greek intellectual developments would not be adopted in the west until the Renaissance.


European medieval thinking
European Medieval thinking simple to more complex. Although he did not mean to imply evolution, it nevertheless ranked all of creation from great to small.

  • After the fall of the Roman Empire (~478 AD), Europe would be politically fragmented and a period of intellectual conservatism would be the norm.

  • Meanwhile, Arab civilization would be the center of intellectual development – esp. in mathematics, optics, medicine.

  • In Europe, intellectual activity would be under the purview of the church – monasteries would be the loci of study, contemplation, documentation.


History of science

  • According to the Church, all that could be known about the world came from the bible.

  • Creation had been perfect

  • Degeneration: after people were tossed out of Eden, it was all down hill – the further history moved away from creation, the more evil grew and the 2nd coming would restore God’s kingdom.

  • Likewise, the further one got from the holy land, the more degenerate would be those societies.


The day the universe changed
The Day the Universe Changed world came from the bible.


The new world
The “New World” world came from the bible.

  • The “discovery” of the Americas was one of the most important events in European history (although historians mostly focus on the impact of Europe on the Americas).

  • There were several troubling aspects to the discovery.


History of science

  • First, the Bible had absolutely nothing to say about the Americas – not its location, people, history, etc.

  • Europeans came into contact with people entirely ignorant of God, Christ, etc.

  • The plants and animals of the Americas were unknown – although there were some that were the same.


History of science

  • This led to Americas – not its location, people, history, etc.

    1) recognition that the Bible was not the ultimate authority on nature

    2) debate over the nature of Indigenous people (were they animals or humans?)

    3) classification of the animals & plants.

    4) the fact that no one knew anything about the Americas sparked curiosity – the need to know.


History of science

Of course, there were many other ramifications to Americas – not its location, people, history, etc.

European domination of the Americas –

  • Economic: commerce would eventually lead to the industrial revolution

  • Power: struggles over control of the colonies and their wealth would spark intense competition between European nations (Spain vs. Britain, etc.)

  • Politics: Liberalism (our current form of government) would have its first experiment in the Americas (USA).


History of science

Our concern here, however, is in science. Americas – not its location, people, history, etc.

  • The discovery of the new world began a process of separation of church and science.

  • Many would try to reconcile science & religion, but ultimately, science would largely reject theology as a way of knowing the natural world.

  • This would be a difficult period with many wounded – but the process was more or less inevitable.


Rene descartes 1596 1650
Rene Descartes Americas – not its location, people, history, etc.(1596-1650)

  • Descartes is often called the 'father' of modern philosophy.

  • Descartes argued that knowledge is genuinely possible, and that a mathematically-based scientific knowledge of the material world is possible.


Cogito ergo sum
Cogito, ergo sum Americas – not its location, people, history, etc.

  • he rejected religious authority in the quest for scientific and philosophical knowledge (but he was a devout Catholic)

  • He argued for a rational justification for a universal, mathematical/ quantitative understanding of nature.

  • We still rely largely on the Cartesian view of the universe – a mechanistic view of nature.


History of science

Although Descartes and other philosophers established spaces for coexistence between science and religion, it would still be quite some time before Europe would be able to embrace evolution.


History of science

Up until Darwin, the predominant understanding of the world came from the Bible and Church doctrine. In this respect, truth had been revealed (via the Bible and Christ) . . . There was no need to question God’s creation . . . .

This set of beliefs meant that people were highly resistant to evidence to the contrary and even went so far to create elaborate explanations to “fit” contradictions into religious belief.


Creationism
Creationism came from the Bible and Church doctrine. In this respect, truth had been revealed (via the Bible and Christ) . . . There was no need to question God’s creation . . . .

Several compelling Christian dogmas are important to note:

  • Genesis: GOD created earth in 6 days (don’t forget – he took the last day off).

    Creation was also centered around Earth & Man (we are in his image).


History of science

2) came from the Bible and Church doctrine. In this respect, truth had been revealed (via the Bible and Christ) . . . There was no need to question God’s creation . . . . Relative Youth of the Earth

there was a lot of debate about the exact age . . . but most theologians agreed it wasn’t so long ago.

If the earth was indeed less than 6000 years old, then gradual change could not have occurred.


Bishop ussher 1581 1656
Bishop Ussher came from the Bible and Church doctrine. In this respect, truth had been revealed (via the Bible and Christ) . . . There was no need to question God’s creation . . . . (1581-1656)

  • By working backwards from the Bible (so-and-so begat so-and-so), he calculated the first day of creation to have been Sunday, October 23rd, 4004 BC!

  • Although many have ridiculed this attempt to date the age of the earth, Ussher diligently correlated Middle Eastern and Mediterranean history and scripture to arrive at what was a “reasonable” calculation.


3 the permanence of the earth s physical structure
3) The Permanence of the Earth’s came from the Bible and Church doctrine. In this respect, truth had been revealed (via the Bible and Christ) . . . There was no need to question God’s creation . . . . Physical Structure

According to Christian thought, the appearance of earth is the result of two factors:

  • Original creation by God.

  • The damage done by the great flood.

    Otherwise, the earth had not changed over

    time, it was in a state of stasis.


4 the fixity of species
4) The Fixity of Species came from the Bible and Church doctrine. In this respect, truth had been revealed (via the Bible and Christ) . . . There was no need to question God’s creation . . . .

Likewise, after God created plants & animals, these retained their true, original form, generation after generation.

- no species had been lost

- no species had changed

Nevertheless, people did understand the process of selective (or artificial) breeding.


Crack in the armor 1
Crack in the armor #1 came from the Bible and Church doctrine. In this respect, truth had been revealed (via the Bible and Christ) . . . There was no need to question God’s creation . . . .

  • Fossils – “figured stones” . . . for some time people considered these evidence of God’s “playful” nature . . . that he had decorated some rocks to as replicas of living things.


John ray
John Ray came from the Bible and Church doctrine. In this respect, truth had been revealed (via the Bible and Christ) . . . There was no need to question God’s creation . . . .

  • Natural theology: the doctrine that the wisdom and power of God could be understood by studying His creation.


History of science

  • Ray spent a great deal of time pondering the relationships of organismal form to function.

  • Living things showed adaptations to their environments, which for Ray were signs of God's design and hence worthy of study.

  • Unlike Linnaeus, who focused almost exclusively on classification for its own sake, Ray began to use classification to address questions in physiology, function, and behavior


Argument from design
Argument from Design of organismal form to function.

  • Rev. William Paley – Natural Theology

    “The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD”

    Nature is a watch & GOD is the watchmaker.


Essentialism
Essentialism of organismal form to function.

Due to neo-Platonism, variation in species was disregarded.

As long as the ideal form existed (in God’s mind), then subtle, minute variations were insignificant and did not demonstrate change over time.


Evidence supporting evolution prior to darwin
Evidence supporting evolution prior to Darwin of organismal form to function.


Uniformitarianism
Uniformitarianism of organismal form to function.

  • James Hutton : came up with the observation

  • Lyell made the ideas popular.


Sir charles lyell 1797 1875
Sir Charles Lyell of organismal form to function. (1797 – 1875)

Wrote: Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of Man in 1863 and Principles of Geology

Lyell argued that presently observable

Geological processes were adequate

to explain geological history; the action

of the rain, sea, volcanoes, earthquakes,

etc., explained the geological history of

more ancient times.


Jean baptiste lamarck 1744 1829
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck of organismal form to function. (1744-1829)

Inheritance of acquired characteristics


Georges cuvier 1769 1832
Georges Cuvier of organismal form to function. (1769-1832)

Catastrophism

Opposed Lamarck

Convinced others that

extinction was a fact

Known as the father of

Comparative anatomy


Extinction
Extinction of organismal form to function.

Cuvier’s work demonstrated that some

species had become extinct  this raised two issues:

1) Why would God allow some of his creations to disappear.

2. Young earth theory: how could so many strange species go extinct, be covered by sediments, if the earth was young?


Sequence of fossil types
Sequence of Fossil types of organismal form to function.

  • By the 1830’s there was general recognition that fossils had been organisms.

  • Further, it was apparent that older strata contained very simple animals. As one moved through time, the organisms became more and more complex.

  • There was no reason to believe that catastrophes had occurred . . . .


Existence of rudimentary organs
Existence of Rudimentary Organs of organismal form to function.

  • By the late 1700s, biologists recognized that some animals retained parts they didn’t use

    • snakes with vestiges of limbs

    • Flightless insects retained stunted wings.

    • These observations contradicted the argument from design theory.


Structural similarities
Structural similarities of organismal form to function.

  • A human hand, fin of seal, wing of bat, etc. all show similar structure.

  • While Creationists argued that this was evidence of the uniform plan of God, evolutionists would argue that this was due to a common evolutionary past.


Embryological development
Embryological development of organismal form to function.

  • 18th century comparative anatomists noted that as animals went through embryonic development, it was difficult in the early stages to tell what type of animal it was. Chicken, lizard and human embryos look very similar and have similar structures (gill slits, etc.).

  • Darwin would use this to argue common descent.


Artificial selection
Artificial Selection of organismal form to function.

  • Animal breeders had demonstrated that species are not immutable . . . That is, they can be changed through selective breeding.


Charles darwin
Charles Darwin of organismal form to function.


Thomas malthus 1766 1834
Thomas Malthus of organismal form to function. (1766-1834)

  • Essay on the Principle of Population (1798)

  • In nature, organisms produce far more offspring than can survive.

  • Man too is capable of overproducing if left unchecked (advocated limiting family size)

  • Famine would become globally epidemic and eventually consume Man.


Alfred russel wallace
Alfred Russel Wallace of organismal form to function.

If not for me, Darwin would not have published his ideas . . Yet, no one remembers my name!!


Alfred russel wallace 1823 1913
Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) of organismal form to function.

  • Travels to Amazon & Malay Archipelago (1848-62)

  • Independently developed theory of natural selection (drew same conclusion from Malthus as had Darwin)

  • Wrote an essay “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type”

  • Send ms off to Darwin for review – Darwin submitted his own, beating Wallace to the punch!!


Herbert spencer
Herbert Spencer of organismal form to function.

  • Coined the term “Survival of the Fittest”

  • Tried to apply evolution to human populations and demonstrate moral superiority of Europeans