Yesterday Google celebrated a pioneer in the field of geology, Nicholas Steno, who some call the “Father of Geology” by giving him front page status with the Google Doodle of the day. As I am currently teaching three sections of Apologetics I am more in the mood to respond to ridiculous misreporting in the news than usual.
Bl. Nicholas Steno was a physician and scientist who identified the workings of the salivary gland, explained the mystery of “tongues of serpents” (fossilized shark teeth) and observed and explained how layers of rock show the passage of time (thereby providing the first principles of geological science). He was beatified by John Paul II in 1988. You can read more about him in this fairly well done article on Wikipedia.
The Los Angeles Times gives us an article on this momentous event that seriously misses the mark on fairly representing Catholicism. The writer displays a common misunderstanding of the relationship between faith and science. In her article she outlines the above scientific achievements of Steno and then (shaking her head in astonishment) writes:
“After making such scientific observations -- at the time underappreciated -- Steno got religion. He became Roman Catholic in 1667 and tossed aside science. In 1675, he became a priest and in 1677 a bishop.”
Of course in order to have become a Catholic priest Steno must have set aside his scientific convictions. He could not possibly have held to such scientific views once becoming a Catholic and then worse yet a priest and bishop. This is the “company line” at the LA Times so it must be true.
Several factual errors beg to be identified and refuted.
First, he didn’t “get religion” in 1667. He was raised Lutheran and encountered thinking Catholics (many of whom were scientists) while studying in Florence. Thus began a search for truth. While wrestling with his difficulties with Lutheranism he then became interested in the Catholic Church’s claim to be the Church founded by Christ. So he was already a man of faith when he became Catholic.
Second, he didn’t leave science behind when he embraced Rome. He read the Church Fathers and found that Catholicism not only won out in the area of continuity with the Early Church but it also was more compatible with his scientific views. Bl. Nicholas Steno, rather than being a good example of the supposed conflict between faith and science, serves as a perfect example of the total compatibility of them. He became a Catholic precisely because Catholicism is not just compatible with the work of science, but was, and arguably still is, its greatest patron.
Finally, as a Catholic priest and then bishop he never denounced his scientific discoveries nor made any pronouncements that rejected his own scientific work or even science in general. He simply was not ashamed of this part of his life. He only lived 11 years after his priestly ordination and spent 9 of them as a bishop working in Protestant territories as a leader of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. It is true that he was now too busy as a bishop to engage in regular scientific inquiry, but this hardly makes him an opponent of science.
In the Wikipedia article on Steno they report: “In 1683, Steno resigned as auxiliary bishop after an argument about the election of the new bishop, Maximilian Henry of Bavaria and moved in 1684 to Hamburg. There Steno became involved again in the study of the brain and the nerve system with an old friend Dirck Kerckring.” Oh, I see, he was doing brain research because he left science behind when he became a Catholic. Why couldn’t I figure that out? I’m glad I have the LA Times around to help me read between the lines. I’m sorry, please pardon the sarcasm.
A word of advice to the writers at the LA Times, perhaps you should start reading Wikipedia for some much needed balance and information before reporting on people of faith like Nicholas Steno.
Dino Durando, BHI Instructor
