Summa origines scientiarum: Articulus 1
Question I. Whether Christianity promoted the rise of science Article 1. Whether there was a Scientific Revolution
Objection 1. It would seem otherwise, because the term science is not well-defined. Lindberg (1992), for example, provides no less than seven different definitions. Therefore, there was no Scientific Revolution because there is no one thing called science.
Objection 2. It would seem otherwise, because the term science means "knowledge" and mankind has always accumulated knowledge. Therefore, there was never a scientific revolution.
Objection 3. It would seem otherwise, because, as Charles Homer Haskins wrote, "The continuity of history rejects such sharp and violent contrasts between successive periods" of history. Therefore, Science emerged gradually and not through a “revolution.”
Objection 4. It would seem otherwise, because a revolution consists of definitive points of change, and is carried out during a short time according to a plan. But the development of science took place over an extended time and was unplanned.
On the contrary, British historian Herbert Butterfield wrote that the Scientific Revolution “outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes… within the system of medieval Christendom.”
Read more »