October 290, 2002 - The 17th Century stands out as a time when God provided humanity with special ingredients that would result in the development of science and scientific thought; so much so that it has been called the century of genius. Many scientists were seemingly set into motion in numerous scientific arenas: Giovanni Borelli who worked with lenses and microscopes, Robert Boyle who discovered that the pressure of a gas in a closed container is inversely proportional to the volume of the container, i.e. Boyle's Law; Galileo Galilei who defined mathematical laws that described the movement of bodies on the earth; Isaac Newton articulated the Law of Gravity; Johannes Kepler wrote on the Laws of Planetary Motion; John Ray was a founder of systematics; Antony von Leeuwenhoek was one of the first humans to see microorganisms through magnifying lens, Robert Hooke first reported to the world that life's smallest living units were "little boxes" later known as cells, Marcella Malpighi, and Jan Swammerdam were also classical microscopists of the first order who brought cognizance and understanding of the microscopic structure of ourselves, and of the flora and fauna with which we coexist (Gardner, 1972). Through the efforts of these scientists the advantages of inquiry through the scientific method, encompassing the progression from observation to data analysis to formulation of the hypothesis and the use of a control to generate new data and followed by the re-evaluation of the initial hypothesis to reach a conclusion, were realized and formalized. The 17th Century emerged as a time when science and invention wed and the application of science advanced causes in agriculture, mining, navigation, and, of course, business. Was it simply a one-dimensional application of genius or were there multidimensional aspects of the historical context that led to such a remarkable century in our journey as a species?
In retrospect, it is easy to see that science, and the remarkable technologies that have sprung from it, is the single-most important factor that has demarcated the modern world from previous centuries. If we make the analogy of the development of society with the ontogeny of the human body, then the 17th Century might represent the emergence of the final trimester of human society within the womb of time. For both the individual and for societal progression, if this comparison may be deemed appropriate, this period represents a spectacular time of growth. While this trimester, at first glance, might be lauded as the most "critical" of periods in the development of the individual, one must remember that the ability to achieve cellular proliferation at this point is dependent upon the remarkable cellular events that preceded this stage. Nervous tissue will not migrate to necessary and final destinations unless primordial cells have laid the framework for predestined paths. In like fashion, science could not have been born without the "gastrulations" necessary for its final formation.
As academicians, stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. The same is true for the 17th Century scientists. Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Decartes, widely regarded as the stars of the 17th Century, are no exception. They were privy to the work of Copernicus (16th Century), and Copernicus to previous works such as the Pythagorean Theory and the truths and fallacies of thinkers such as Aristotle, Plato, Occam and other great minds. Indeed, several of the works of the masterful minds of the 17th Century were proofs of what Copernicus began, e.g. the Laws of Planetary Motion for Kepler and the Law of Inertia for Galileo (Russell, 1945). Newton did not merely take a hit from a gravitationally compromised apple, but instead stood on the pooled calculations and theories of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. The discoveries, the ideas, the failures, and successes of previous generations had reached critical mass; science was to become a force in the progress of humankind. I would suggest that no person, within a single lifetime and expecting to make significant contribution to science, can stand alone when he attempts to think the thoughts of God behind Him. Such was the case at this point in time. The accumulated progressions of the human family had reached a contextual summit where the thinkers of the 17th Century could, so to speak, peer over the barriers that veiled both truth and future. Within sight were the answers to some of God's riddles. Riddles that had been hidden, and certainly not by intention, by His superior knowledge and were finally within the cooperative and cumulative grasp of humankind's hand.
Let's explore some factors that may have contributed to this "coming" of science. Recall if you will that the Thirty Years' War ended with the Peace of Westphalia (1648) in the middle of this century. The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire was effectively complete at this point, both in politics and international law. While there were many distractions to the development of science that resulted from this war during the first half of the 17th Century there arose during the later half many new sovereign States (Palmer and Colton, 1995). Scientists consequently were effectively out from under the watchful eye of the Pope and freer to take up more controversial pursuits. Governance was relaxing its grip on the control of scientific investigation.
Human societal structures too had progressed to the point that elements within society did not need to be solely concerned with "hunting and gathering", i.e. the compulsory work of scraping up enough food for daily subsistence. Segments of the population now found time for education and the arts; some possessed enough wealth to support academic efforts for themselves and others. There were even societies, or academies as they were known, that existed to offer financial and moral support to the aspiring scientist. Some examples of academies that flourished during the 17th Century include the Academy of Experiments in Italy, the French Academy of Science, the Royal Society of London, and the Academy of the Lynx in Rome whose motto was "sharp eyesight and keen observation" (Gardner, 1972). Correspondence and the sharing of information and ideas burst upon the scene. It became a matter of prestige for the aspiring scientist to be deemed worthy of correspondence with those who had already contributed to science. While universities had been established for sometime, studies in medicine had included virtually no basic science or experimental procedures within the curriculum. However, with the advent of the 17th Century and the blazing of a trail that led to discovery, these courses began to slowly work there way into the rigorous liberal arts curriculum previously deemed necessary for medical students.
Scientists of the 17th Century were finally able to collect, and analyze the works of others and then apply their own ingenuity to the problem. Certainly other humans on countless occasions throughout history of humankind have discovered things that advanced the well-being of the species. However, at the 17th Century we had finally reached a point in time where knowledge could be appreciated for and even beyond its application. Discovery for the sake of discovery could now be valued. Having finally been set free with resources and time within a rapidly forming framework of factual information, the work of these individuals resulted not only in pure knowledge, but in methods that catapulted our world into one of proofs and logic. While this was not the first time aspects of the scientific method were used, it was a time when it engrained itself into formal procedures that would come to be expected of all who sought to take science where no other had gone. It should be noted that the application of these procedures have thoroughly permeated other academic disciples. The linguist, the economist, the social scientist, and, indeed most academic disciplines, use some form of the scientific method when they enjoin research of discovery. Perhaps of greater importance, the "method" called into question a multitude of time-honored assumptions. For scientists at this juncture in our history it became the "how" and the "why" of what they believed rather than the "what" which distinguished them from others in time past and brought the world literally into a time of Enlightenment (Russell, 1945).
Therefore, I would contend that the stage was set and the time was right for humans, gifted to be sure, to combine patience and clarity of mind with the skills of observation. Thoughtful progression through the acts of discovery allowed them to adequately form and test hypotheses; even those that may have seemed ridiculous to the accepted wisdom of the day. It seems to me that the scientists of the 17th Century were distinguished not so much by being the first great modern thinkers, but rather as being among the first thinkers existing at the confluence of forces that provided the climate necessary for real and deep discovery to materialize within the ranks of our species.
To be sure, problems existed for these architects of scientific thought who were working during this third trimester in the womb of societal gestation. Scientific findings often clashed with preconceived notions of the clergy who, along with physicians, represented the only previously educated segments of society. The findings of Copernicus concerning heliocentricity were "admonished" by both Luther and Calvin. These men concurred with assumptions that "we" were the center of all God's creation and Calvin, when offering an opinion on Copernian findings, is said to have righteously exclaimed "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" (White, 1968). Even though some scholars (McGrath, 1999) claim only Luther spoke caustically of the theory, religion's propensity for correcting science is nevertheless the same. While God never said that the earth was the center of our universe, it had been surmised that even the most illiterate person of the day would be able to ascertain that because Joshua commanded the sun to be still and the shadow went backwards in the time of Hezekiah, that the sun certainly and surely had to revolve around the earth. All this was held to be self-evident truth despite the fact that none had tested the hypothesis. No one seemed to question that when Peter pronounced "Money have I none but such as I have I give to you in the name of Jesus. Arise and walk" he had not the slightest idea how God accomplished the feat. However, God understood the needs surrounding the requests of Joshua and Hezekiah just as He understood the plea set forth by Peter. The request was granted but no explanation of the science was or has since been offered by our Creator.
Perhaps the greatest of the injustices afforded to a scientist of any century, and certainly to one of the 17th Century, was dealt to Galileo. Galileo, whose clash with the Church is legendary, found that his confirmation of the existence of several as yet undiscovered heavenly bodies, which exceeded the currently sacred number of seven recognized at that time, and his adoption of Copernian heliocentrism would bring him great anguish. His proclamation of these truths wrought from scientific experimentation led to his condemnation by the Inquisition both in private and publicly in 1632 (Russell, 1945). He was later, under threat of excommunication and perhaps torture, forced to recant his aforeheld positions and made to promise he would never again espouse that the earth rotated around the sun. No small amount of damage, past and present, has been done to and by the Church with this single misguided act. Unfortunately, once Galileo's theories became accepted as fact and his work was recognized as taking our understanding of the universe and the laws of nature to a new plane, the Church and some of its interpretations came to be seen as fallible. By contrast, science, following the almost simultaneous discovery of the previously unimagined immensity and the unforeseen minuscule nature of the components of our universe, was propelled into a new and eminently prestigious position within society.
The results of the advent of real hypothesis-testing science began to create within the populace a profound change in the perception of the place of our species and resulted in an unprecedented fear on the part of the governing powers of the day, i.e. those within the clergy and of the government who attempted to hold onto the orthodoxy spawned prior to this prelude to the Age of Enlightenment. Our medieval place at the center of the universe was in question and, indeed many did sincerely begin to doubt that "the Heavens had been created for the glory of God". The religious doubts and fallacies that emerged from the science of 17th Century have persisted until the present and, according to scripture, can be expected to follow humankind until Christ returns. There seems, at least to me, great irony in the fact that while an altered view of the universe precipitated a great falling away from the faith a similar adjustment to our understanding of science is touted as necessary, plausible and acceptable. Our scientific view of the universe, as enunciated through the works of Galileo and Newton, has in fact been altered considerably since its inception, i.e. the amalgamation of space and time into a space-time continuum. In like fashion, our understanding of scripture in light of science, predicated upon our ascension up the ladder of knowledge acquisition and the certainty of the proposed new information, should in no way dispossess us of our faith. Humans, being anything but omniscient, by necessity interpret our environment and the scripture through the portal of our experience. As our knowledge level, and hence our collective experience, changes so can our understanding of God's revelation. Herein was the problem that surrounded the Church with the inception of heliocentrism. In time, the Church reacted properly in that as the burden of proof came down on the side of science, so did our understanding of Scripture. This issue was not one that should have challenged our faith in the first place; it merely ousted long established tradition that never came directly from scripture. Experience should be tempered with reason, but it must be done within the context of faith. It should be noted that the Catholic Church officially apologized, albeit a long time coming, for its 17th Century treatment of Galileo in 1992 (Los Angeles Times), a mere decade ago.
In Europe, the end of universal monarchy and the major blow dealt to the principle of eius regio, eius religio in 1648 at The Peace of Westphalia (Palmer and Colton, 1995) added to a euphoric sense of meaningful direction that seemed to be engulfing much of the world. There was a greater freedom to worship as you would or would not. The spirit of the 18th Century Enlightenment is held by some to be the direct result of the scientific revolution that took place in the 17th Century. Accordingly, "modern" 17th Century people ceased to fear both God and the devil and a watchmaker mentality of God began to replace that of a loving Father. As might be expected, people of faith responded to this perceived slide from orthodoxy. Major revivals were held in the century by John Wesley in England and George Whitfield in America and the Great Awakening was born in the 1740's. Accompanying this evangelistic movement were the great spiritual hymns, oratorios and anthems of Issac Watts, J.S. Bach, and the Messiah (Palmer and Colton, 1995). One person may have thought the good flowed from God while the other held it was the result of science, but both felt the future to be exceptionally bright. So it seems that at long last the principle of freedom of worship began to be allowed in practice if not always officially. From this undulating sea of opinion, belief, judgment, doubt and attitude there did indeed seem to grow among the people a conviction that time would produce increasingly enlightened generations of people and improved world conditions with each generation. This indomitable spirit did much to usher in the Enlightenment of the Eighteenth Century.
If the 17th Century represented the third trimester of a birthing process then surely our infant burst from the womb during the 18th Century into a bright new environment that could and would support the rapid growth of a world in an infancy that was frantically striving to take its first steps toward adulthood. At this point I would like to delve into what I consider some lasting effects that were spawned from the magnificent 17th Century and to examine some results that arose from the interactions the science which grew from the 17th Century and left human trails across the sands of time.
The cumulative increase in all forms of knowledge across both the 17th and the 18th centuries fed through technological advances the accumulation of wealth in Western societies. A positive feedback system developed between scientific and technical information acquisition and the accumulation of wealth in that an increase in one supported an increase in the other. The partnership of basic science, in the form of discovery, with the science of application and the business world was born and this mutual relationship has continued across the millennia. In fact, those States which have led the world in science and its application seem to have embarked, since the 18th Century, upon a never-ending mission to advance "progress" as defined primarily by the accumulation of wealth and the acquisition of technology. It has been well documented that within the Western countries science fueled the agricultural revolution, which laid the foundations for the Industrial Revolution, which necessarily went before the post-industrial Information Age now predicated by the Biotech Century. While the economy may have fueled these "advancements", it has been the engine of science that has pulled the cart. It seems the process of discovery and its resulting applications have been critical to each and every developmental stage of society since the 17th Century.
History will record that, along our developmental path as a global community, science and technology played a dominant role toward creating a divided planet; the technohaves and the technohave-nots. Riches and power have followed those cultures which nurtured and developed the art of science & invention. We must ask ourselves if it is sufficiently appropriate for the god of Science to allow one culture or State to lord it over another equally valid but developmentally different culture. Jared Diamond (1999), trained as a bird evolutionist and an accomplished researcher within the field, has gained remarkable insight into the cultures and lives of hominids during his extensive research travels. Diamond purports there to be no greater genius residing with any one race as opposed to any other. He adeptly explains that technology acquisition is a cultural icon that will allow or discourage its own use along various paths. The technology that is most useful for the individual culture is utilized while others, despite any intrinsic properties for future use, will likely be discarded.
Another of Diamond's (1999) remarkable insights suggests that hunter-gather societies became communal societies complete with laws and governance only when physical space necessitated frequent interaction. Extrapolating from this principle, we may make the application that, courtesy of advanced technology, cultures are now also forced into frequent interaction. From this illustration we should realize the direction that globalization is taking us; that it is here to stay. We as individuals, and as societies, will have to deal with it if for no other reason than our backyards now join. Our territories or national boundaries join not because the world has physically gotten smaller but because of improved science and technology within the realms of communications, computers, and travel. From these advancements we have developed global economies, politics, health care concerns, and threatening environmental problems (Scholte, 2000). Six billion people now claim our earth as home and, at least currently, there is nowhere else to go. Like it or not, we are all members of a global society and every nation is a member State in a global community.
As previously illustrated, the accumulated knowledge harvested from scientific procedure and utilized through the genius of application for the benefit of the individual or the species has contributed immeasurably to the current level of sophistication achieved by humankind. Unfortunately science can be a double-edged sword capable of great good or great evil and may be swung maliciously or with beneficence and these consequential cuts, in both directions, may be made, under the guise of some other intention or even unknowingly. It should be evident that with each progressive step into new territory there are and will continue to be new problems crying out for resolution. Consequently the ladder of success, progress, and advancement that is often attributed to science is strewn with the refuse of its application. Is it our nature, our lack of insight or our greed, that precludes our fixing problems at the front end of a given technological process or procedure? For example, within the environmental realm even our vast knowledge base concerning ecological cycles that are absolutely critical to the proper functioning of our planet has not yet prevented us from exploiting our planet for individual or national advantage. Fueled by the fires of the almighty economy and a human desire for convenience, the technological subsidy of our species has created a formidable list of problems that have progressed rapidly, in the context of our history, to worldwide scale. Global warming, atmospheric accumulation of ozone, stratospheric depletion of ozone, desertification, acid rain, air and water pollution, and a loss of biodiversity that surpasses anything ever witnessed on earth represent tribulations that have followed human ascendancy to the role of planet earth's undisputed physical sovereign. Are we as a species, however, a despotic monarch? At the risk of becoming too anthropomorphic I will nevertheless ask this question "Have we so repressively subjugated our environment that it too will rebel as humans have always risen against self-centered and egotistical tyrants?" As a species we must consider this question carefully.
What has brought us to this man-made precipice? We clearly can follow a trail across history that leads us to the 17th Century where crystallization of the techniques of science provided the means to go after our needs and our wants with uncanny and surgical precision. Suddenly nothing seemed beyond the grasp of the one made in the image of the Creator. But is it science itself that brought us to this stage in our development? And to go back to our early analogy, at what point in our development have we come to as a species? Are we still floundering in adolescence or have we doomed ourselves through our great capacity for invention to an early senescence? Has this facility for invention outpaced our capability for discipline or our application of ethics and morality? Are we capable in our humanity of managing our planetary domicile?
There are as many opinions which answer these questions as there are experts. As explained so eloquently by Mary Clark in her book Ariadne's Thread (1989), some have adopted the Cassandra approach and just as the daughter of the King of Troy in ecstatic trance prophesied the doom of the city so they proclaim our certain demise. Others, who have received the 17th Century baton of an unfailing trust in science as the answer to all of our problems, believe that science will rescue us from the horrors of our current dilemma. Theirs, per Clark's use of Elenor Porter's novel character, is the ever wistful stance that Pollyanna took.
It seems ironic that the very thing that was discarded by so many with the rise of science could have proven to be the antidote for humanities' misbehavior, i.e. the morality and ethics that are part and parcel of true religion. To quote a popular song of my youth written by Barry McGuire "I don't believe we are on the eve of destruction". I believe humankind has the answer to the global problems we have created, has had it for ages, and we are in hot pursuit of it within Christian higher education. As Christian academicians and educators I trust we can make a difference in this world by educating young men and women who understand the grief it brings to those of other cultures when they learn the Western world has sole access and control of the lion's share of the world's resources. We can make a difference when drama, art or music of young artists enters the portal of our hearts and touches our national souls to "do the right thing" or to escape the comfort of our utopia and come to grip with the realities of life beyond the Western World. We can make a difference when our scientists and economists bring us to grips with and offer viable solutions to the ecological nightmare looming on our horizon. We can make a difference when our medical missionaries bring physical and spiritual healing to a hurting and misguided world. We can make a difference by becoming a nation that is willing to curtail our fossil fuel emission, physically and financially work to alleviate suffering and crimes against humanity, and dedicate ourselves to finding solutions to the world problems that continue to threaten global stability. Our approach to such a daunting task must be a well-rounded and interdisciplinary one. As educators we must insist that our students be as familiar with the classics of literature as the computer, as competent in their theology as in mathematics and as skilled at psychology as communication. Our students must be able to clearly articulate, perhaps in a multiple of languages, the principles for which they stand and the good which can be accomplished through business, education, science or the arts. They must understand the historical and political context of the varied social, cultural and political structures that shape the fringes of their international backyard. Just as Roman roads opened up a means for the dissemination of the Gospel to those Christians that lived in the 1st Century, globalization allows Christians of the 21st Century the opportunity to finally and completely fulfill the Great Commission and make a lasting physical as well as spiritual difference in our world.
Back to our developmental analogy, it will be humanity, not God, luck or destiny, which defines the next stage in our ontogeny. I mean no disrespect to our Lord with this statement but just as He has allowed choice in so many aspects of our life and faith so He will allow us to shape this aspect of our destiny. On the one hand is early senescence and on the other is a vigorous and viable global community. Changes in our nation and in our world must occur if we are to peacefully coexist and avoid the cultural fragmentation so evident in today's world. High ideas must be put in place. But to accomplish these changes it will require leaders willing to acknowledge, accept and strive for the commandment Jesus said was the second greatest: "Love thy neighbor as thyself". We must accept science for what it is; a great and marvelous tool, but just a tool. We must not allow it to take our faith but rather to strengthen it and we must do all that we can to reinstate our Lord to His rightful position within the hearts of humankind. Early in our societal ontogeny many loosed science and faith. It is time to reunite them. I have spoken of the confluence of factors which shaped the "coming of science" but, the truth is, science is still "coming". We have after five centuries only begin to scratch the surface on the wonders of His creation. Despite our past record, science can still be applied across the various disciples and, when united with faith, it can be used to reclaim our planet both physically and spiritually for the good of humankind and the greater glory of our God. It is to this effort that we as educators are called and I pray it is to this destiny we send our own, our students, our champions.
References
Clark, Mary E. Ariadne's Thread: The Search for New Modes of Thinking. 1989. St. Martin's Press, Inc. New York, NY.
Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. 1999. WW Norton & Co. New York, NY.
Gardner, E. J. History of Biology. 1972. Burgess Publishing Co. Minneapolis, MN. 3rd ed.
McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought: An Introduction. 1999. Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Malden, MA. 3rd ed.
Palmer R. R. and Joel Colton. A History of the Modern World. 1995. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. 8th ed.
Scholte, Jan Aart. Globalization: A Critical Introduction. 2000. St. Martin's Press. New York, NY.
Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. 1945. Simon & Schuster. New York, NY.
Vatican admits Galileo correct. Los Angeles Times, October, 1992.