Carl Linnaeus

[Perspicuo]

[quote=""Dutch_labrat""]

If Linnaeus, a botanist and Lutheran pastor, didn't know about evolution, why did he classify animals into families?

You read too much in the meaning of words, they were just a series of collective nouns he used. What other words should he have used?

When you want to create a nomenclature system for, let's say, power tools you might create families like drills, saws and sanders. That does in no way imply these involved from an electric toothbrush.

The very fact that the double-nested hierarchy created by evolution was reflected in his system even when he was not aware of it shows that it is inherent to how earth live is ordered. He noticed the order without knowing the cause.[/QUOTE]

That's the point. I "read too much in" it, which is the natural human thing to do. The wonder is why Linnaeus and colleagues did not. That was why I asked. Humans have a highly developped pattern recognition system inside their skulls. We recognize patterns and theorize. We not only can do it, but more importantly, we can't stop. Ever.

Question which has already been satisfactorily answered in the thread.

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]

If Linnaeus, a botanist and Lutheran pastor, didn't know about evolution, why did he classify animals into families?

Remember that before Darwin there was zero conflict between science and religion. Science was just the best way to learn and understand about God's creation.

There was quite a few scientifically inclined minds who became priests because it would provide a lot of free time and possibilities to travel. Rather than any kind of religious leanings. Probably the only way non-high nobility had any chance of devoting time to science.

Greger Mendel is another one such person. I can't think of more now. But there was quite a few. One of the finest astronomical observatories since the 16'th century can be found in the Vatican (now castel Gandolfo).

Modernity has radically changed the role of religion and the church in society.[/QUOTE]
From a psychological point of view, there has always been a conflict whenever keen observers have watched closely the nature of things. People just tended to repress and suppress their better judgment due to fear of losing their "heavenly treasure" and earthly... erm, life. It's only that the conflict has gotten from private to overt gradually in the past 300 years, in part due to increasing scientific knowledge, in part more and better means of communication and education, and in part advances in legally sanctioned liberties.

[DrZoidberg]

[quote=""Perspicuo""]

Remember that before Darwin there was zero conflict between science and religion. Science was just the best way to learn and understand about God's creation.

There was quite a few scientifically inclined minds who became priests because it would provide a lot of free time and possibilities to travel. Rather than any kind of religious leanings. Probably the only way non-high nobility had any chance of devoting time to science.

Greger Mendel is another one such person. I can't think of more now. But there was quite a few. One of the finest astronomical observatories since the 16'th century can be found in the Vatican (now castel Gandolfo).

Modernity has radically changed the role of religion and the church in society.

From a psychological point of view, there has always been a conflict whenever keen observers have watched closely the nature of things. People just tended to repress and suppress their better judgment due to fear of losing their "heavenly treasure" and earthly... erm, life. It's only that the conflict has gotten from private to overt gradually in the past 300 years, in part due to increasing scientific knowledge, in part more and better means of communication and education, and in part advances in legally sanctioned liberties.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree at all. I can't be arsed with a long explanation. But the way we figure out what is true has shifted over time. The concept of what an authority is, has shifted. There's a lot of stuff that has changed. The concept of truth itself used to be a pretty relative and abstract concept back in the day.

Having access to any semblance of an absolute authority is a very modern thing. People just used to be a hell of a lot more humble about facts. People used to be able to get away with rather flimsy arguments that stood largely unopposed. A big reason was the lack of a free and open debate among the educated. Did not remotely exist before the 15'th century. If it's only a handful people in the whole world who grasp formal logic and cutting edge science, and they all have a vested interest in the church staying in power, it's not hard to see how people won't look to hard at the rotting carcass, that is theism.

It wasn't until the rise of industrialization, and you got a debate between educated people, NOT dependent upon the church for their finances that the house of clay started wobbling. This was not long ago.

[Bomb#20]

[quote=""DrZoidberg""]A big reason was the lack of a free and open debate among the educated. Did not remotely exist before the 15'th century. If it's only a handful people in the whole world who grasp formal logic and cutting edge science, and they all have a vested interest in the church staying in power, it's not hard to see how people won't look to hard at the rotting carcass, that is theism.[/quote]

“The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful.”
― Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire