# No Evolution and No Heliocentric System - Some Help Needed



## FenderPriest

Hey guys,

In a discussion about the creation account with a friend, he proposed this question:



> If you are saying that the theory of evolution goes against the Genesis 1-2, then tell me where it does so, according to your reading and tell me at the same time why the heliocentric system does not?



So, he's wondering how I can say that evolution is not in the Bible, and say at the same time that the Bible doesn't teach heliocentrism. To be honest, I've not done much thinking on this area, so I'd appreciate any thoughts or guidance you guys would have on this. Thanks!


----------



## Davidius

I'm not sure I understand the question. He thinks that the bible does or does not teach heliocentrism?


----------



## FenderPriest

Davidius said:


> I'm not sure I understand the question. He thinks that the bible does or does not teach heliocentrism?



He's observing that a literal reading of the Bible would lead one to be heliocentric. Since I'm claiming that the Bible does not teach evolution because I'm taking the creation account to be literal, he's asking why I'm not also a heliocentrist. Does that help?


----------



## Davidius

Isn't heliocentrism the correct view (as opposed to geocentrism)?


----------



## toddpedlar

I think he's asking why, if you believe evolution is inconsistent, why you also believe heliocentrism (sun-centered solar system) is consistent with the Bible.

Geocentrism is what some say the Bible teaches (because it speaks of the rising and setting of the sun, and because of the incidents with Hezekiah and Joshua). 

The complaint is a red herring, of course, objections to evolution do not require objections to helocentrism. The two involve completely different hermeneutical considerations.


----------



## FenderPriest

toddpedlar said:


> The complaint is a red herring, of course, objections to evolution do not require objections to helocentrism. The two involve completely different hermeneutical considerations.



Todd, could you walk me through these? 

As a note, I believe I miss spoke. I think he's asking why I don't believe in geocentricism.

Also, his whole question may help clarify my question and subsequent discussion:


> If we put on these glasses with which we see the text only in a literalistic light, then Genesis 1-2 is describing a geocentric world, where two larger elements are put on the sky and with them (a dozen or so) stars. These two larger elements are the sun and the moon and their function is to provide illumination for God's people in the day (the Sun) and in the night (the moon).
> 
> If you are saying that the theory of evolution goes against the Genesis 1-2, then tell me where it does so, according to your reading and tell me at the same time why the heliocentric system does not? It seems to me that if you are saying that we should read a part of Genesis metaphorically and it has a consequence for the heliocentric system, then likewise it should have a consequence for the theory of evolution.


----------



## Zenas

Because the Bible doesn't teach geocentrism, nor does it teach heliocentrism. He's arguing from silence. 

With the information you have alone from Scripture, one cannot conclude necessarily that the Earth is the center of the solar system, nor that the Sun is. The Bible just doesn't say anything about it because God obviously didn't feel the need to create a natural revelation textbook. The Book is focused on special revelation, not natural revelation. If he's treating it like a natural relevation textbook, he's being ignorant, or dishonest. 

There are passages that could support that position with outside evidence, but those passages are not contradicted if the outside evidence points to heliocentrism.

The fact that the sun was stopped in the sky doesn't mean that the Sun was revolving around the Earth necessarily. Rather, from what we know now, the Earth was stopped from revolving around the Sun.

He's claiming a necessary conclusion must be drawn where one isn't supported or warranted, *or even really spoken about. *It's a classic straw man of the unbeliever, the whole geocentrism deal.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## sastark

This is a false dichotomy. Genesis 1 clearly states that God created from nothing all things in a space of six days. It does not say "and He put the earth at the center of it all."

Geocentricism is not a Christian idea. It was inherited from the Greeks. Until the time of Galileo (not Copernicus), Christians lacked the observational data needed to refute geocentricism. However, it should not be thought that the geocentricism of Galileo's day was at all the same as the geocentricism of Aristotle's. Christian scientists had repeatedly modified the model to better describe observed celestial phenomena. Example modifications include: the equant device and epicycle orbits. Tycho Brahe, the leading astronomer before Galileo, proposed a hybrid geocentric/heliocentric model, which was the leading model prior to Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus.

So, two important points: First, Scripture is clear that God created in six days. It uses those exact words. No amount of "observed data" could ever be used to overturn the clear revelation of God. Scripture is not clear on the geocentric/heliocentric question. Second, we ought to base our scientific theories on observation, not speculation. This is why Copernicus' theory didn't catch on until Galileo published his observations, 40 years after Copernicus' death: Copernicus was speculating, Galileo was observing. The same can be applied to YEC and evolution: Evolution is not a theory that can be observed (and I mean on the macro scale, not micro-evolution). We cannot go back in time and watch a life form emerge from the primordial ooze. Nor can we (or will we ever) observe an ape evolve into a non-ape. Evolution is speculation, not observation.

Evolution ought to be rejected because it contradicts the Word of God and it ought to be mocked because of it's lack of scientific support.


----------



## toddpedlar

Zenas said:


> The fact that the sun was stopped in the sky doesn't mean that the Sun was revolving around the Earth necessarily. Rather, from what we know now, the Earth was stopped from revolving around the Sun.



Well, actually what it means is that God stopped the Earth's rotation (not the revolution around the sun).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

toddpedlar said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the sun was stopped in the sky doesn't mean that the Sun was revolving around the Earth necessarily. Rather, from what we know now, the Earth was stopped from revolving around the Sun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually what it means is that God stopped the Earth's rotation (not the revolution around the sun).
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

If we insisted that all phenomenomological language be turned into literal language then we would have an absolute mess. Even meteorologists speak of the time for sundown and sunset to people who believe in a heleocentric solar system. I know I'm not going to convince the few geocentrists we have here but I believe the Puritans have an established view that recognizes that the light of nature has epistemic warrant to shape our beliefs. Puritans don't hold that our senses are deceiving us into seeing objects rotating around each other. We don't have to doubt that we see the sun rising and the sun setting any more than we would deny that we would see the Earth rotating around the sun if we could stand on it - and we have instruments now that can "see" such things.


----------



## Mushroom

From a simple layman's point of view, the sun makes an arch over my feeble head every day. Isn't motion relative to the observer? Aren't both geo- and helio-centricism right dependent on the location of the observer?


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> If we insisted that all phenomenomological language be turned into literal language then we would have an absolute mess. Even meteorologists speak of the time for sundown and sunset to people who believe in a heleocentric solar system. I know I'm not going to convince the few geocentrists we have here but I believe the Puritans have an established view that recognizes that the light of nature has epistemic warrant to shape our beliefs. Puritans don't hold that our senses are deceiving us into seeing objects rotating around each other. We don't have to doubt that we see the sun rising and the sun setting any more than we would deny that we would see the Earth rotating around the sun if we could stand on it - and we have instruments now that can "see" such things.



Word of the day: phenomenomological


Try to use it in a sentence today at work.


----------



## Zenas

toddpedlar said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the sun was stopped in the sky doesn't mean that the Sun was revolving around the Earth necessarily. Rather, from what we know now, the Earth was stopped from revolving around the Sun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually what it means is that God stopped the Earth's rotation (not the revolution around the sun).
Click to expand...


You and your silly science Gallileo.


----------



## Leslie

Zenas said:


> Because the Bible doesn't teach geocentrism, nor does it teach heliocentrism. He's arguing from silence.
> 
> With the information you have alone from Scripture, one cannot conclude necessarily that the Earth is the center of the solar system, nor that the Sun is. The Bible just doesn't say anything about it because God obviously didn't feel the need to create a natural revelation textbook. The Book is focused on special revelation, not natural revelation. If he's treating it like a natural relevation textbook, he's being ignorant, or dishonest.
> 
> There are passages that could support that position with outside evidence, but those passages are not contradicted if the outside evidence points to heliocentrism.
> 
> The fact that the sun was stopped in the sky doesn't mean that the Sun was revolving around the Earth necessarily. Rather, from what we know now, the Earth was stopped from revo.
> 
> He's claiming a necessary conclusion must be drawn where one isn't supported or warranted, *or even really spoken about. *It's a classic straw man of the unbeliever, the whole geocentrism deal.



The earth was not stopped. If it had been, everything not tied down, including all humans, would have been catapulted into space. The author of Joshua may have been speaking just about appearances, that there was something which kept the light of the sun on the horizon rather than allowing it to disappear as usual.


----------



## Mushroom

> The earth was not stopped. If it had been, everything not tied down, including all humans, would have been catapulted into space.


Not if God had decided to prevent them from doing so, which I predict He did.


----------



## MW

Wilhelmus a Brakel (The Christian's Reasonable Service, 64, 65):



> "The truth is that God states in many places in His Word that the sun is in motion, her circuit resulting in both day and night, and that the world remains both motionless and stationary. Nowhere does God speak to the contrary, as we will demonstrate in chapter 8. Since God states it to be so, it is truth and we are to embrace it as truth. Is not God the Creator, maintainer, and governor of all things, who is much better acquainted with His own work than is man with his limited and darkened understanding? Should men not subject their judgment to the very sayings of God? Or should one attempt to bend and twist the clear declarations of God in such a way that they agree with our erroneous thinking? Whatever God declares, also concerning things in the realm of nature, is true. God says that the world is motionless and stationary, being circled by the sun, and thus it is a certain and incontrovertible truth."


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> Wilhelmus a Brakel (The Christian's Reasonable Service, 64, 65):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The truth is that God states in many places in His Word that the sun is in motion, her circuit resulting in both day and night, and that the world remains both motionless and stationary. Nowhere does God speak to the contrary, as we will demonstrate in chapter 8. Since God states it to be so, it is truth and we are to embrace it as truth. Is not God the Creator, maintainer, and governor of all things, who is much better acquainted with His own work than is man with his limited and darkened understanding? Should men not subject their judgment to the very sayings of God? Or should one attempt to bend and twist the clear declarations of God in such a way that they agree with our erroneous thinking? Whatever God declares, also concerning things in the realm of nature, is true. God says that the world is motionless and stationary, being circled by the sun, and thus it is a certain and incontrovertible truth."
Click to expand...


Just to add a scientific flavor to the discussion.

An article about the relationship between mathematical models and reality.
http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/modelstest.doc

A 23 minute geocentristic leaning video:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/geocenvid.htm

Various arguments in favor of geocentrism.
geocexpl.htm


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilhelmus a Brakel (The Christian's Reasonable Service, 64, 65):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The truth is that God states in many places in His Word that the sun is in motion, her circuit resulting in both day and night, and that the world remains both motionless and stationary. Nowhere does God speak to the contrary, as we will demonstrate in chapter 8. Since God states it to be so, it is truth and we are to embrace it as truth. Is not God the Creator, maintainer, and governor of all things, who is much better acquainted with His own work than is man with his limited and darkened understanding? Should men not subject their judgment to the very sayings of God? Or should one attempt to bend and twist the clear declarations of God in such a way that they agree with our erroneous thinking? Whatever God declares, also concerning things in the realm of nature, is true. God says that the world is motionless and stationary, being circled by the sun, and thus it is a certain and incontrovertible truth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to add a scientific flavor to the discussion.
> 
> An article about the relationship between mathematical models and reality.
> http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/modelstest.doc
> 
> A 23 minute geocentristic leaning video:
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/geocenvid.htm
> 
> Various arguments in favor of geocentrism.
> geocexpl.htm
Click to expand...


So, which is it? Are we supposed to use the "clear" Biblical data that the earth is in not in motion or the data from the light of nature to convince us of this? If we deny our ability to observe a phenomena as basic as which heavenly bodies are revolving around which heavenly bodies then are we really capable of observing any motion of the stars in their courses above?

In repudiating Clarkian position on knowledge Rev. Winzer pointed out that Christ Himself told the Scribes and Pharisees that they could read the skies for clear indications of weather patterns and other phenomena, yet we're somehow unable to detect whether or not the earth itself is in motion?

Can somebody explain why we must distrust the light of nature regarding bodies in motion given a foundationalist viewpoint? Is it the viewpoint of the geocentrist that demons are deceiving us into believing the rotation of the Earth? Is the only "justified true belief" in this case that which God has apparently propositionally revealed according to this air tight "prooftext" for geocentrism?


----------



## staythecourse

I didn't read all the posts but the Bible is geocentric philosophically. It is the center of God's universe where he put man and the son of man, played out the entire salvation drama and completely glorified himself. In fact, he started with the earth and everything else came later so importance and centricity doesn't depend on the gravitational pull on each other and the resulting paths.


----------



## MW

Obviously if the light of nature is pitted against the light of scripture then it cannot be the true light of nature. Back to the drawing board. Certainly reason is needed to understand special revelation, but it ought not on that account to be used to veto what God has written for our learning. Having said that, it should also be noted that there may be a true sense in which the earth revolves around the sun; it is just that because man has not yet grasped the broader picture of the universe he does not yet see how everything connects together.


----------



## toddpedlar

Pergamum said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we insisted that all phenomenomological language be turned into literal language then we would have an absolute mess. Even meteorologists speak of the time for sundown and sunset to people who believe in a heleocentric solar system. I know I'm not going to convince the few geocentrists we have here but I believe the Puritans have an established view that recognizes that the light of nature has epistemic warrant to shape our beliefs. Puritans don't hold that our senses are deceiving us into seeing objects rotating around each other. We don't have to doubt that we see the sun rising and the sun setting any more than we would deny that we would see the Earth rotating around the sun if we could stand on it - and we have instruments now that can "see" such things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Word of the day: phenomenomological
> 
> 
> Try to use it in a sentence today at work.
Click to expand...


Ha!

And you thought that would be a challenge. You forgot there's a particle physicist out here, and that's standard jargon for us


----------



## toddpedlar

Leslie said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Bible doesn't teach geocentrism, nor does it teach heliocentrism. He's arguing from silence.
> 
> With the information you have alone from Scripture, one cannot conclude necessarily that the Earth is the center of the solar system, nor that the Sun is. The Bible just doesn't say anything about it because God obviously didn't feel the need to create a natural revelation textbook. The Book is focused on special revelation, not natural revelation. If he's treating it like a natural relevation textbook, he's being ignorant, or dishonest.
> 
> There are passages that could support that position with outside evidence, but those passages are not contradicted if the outside evidence points to heliocentrism.
> 
> The fact that the sun was stopped in the sky doesn't mean that the Sun was revolving around the Earth necessarily. Rather, from what we know now, the Earth was stopped from revo.
> 
> He's claiming a necessary conclusion must be drawn where one isn't supported or warranted, *or even really spoken about. *It's a classic straw man of the unbeliever, the whole geocentrism deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The earth was not stopped. If it had been, everything not tied down, including all humans, would have been catapulted into space. The author of Joshua may have been speaking just about appearances, that there was something which kept the light of the sun on the horizon rather than allowing it to disappear as usual.
Click to expand...


Don't try to argue physics here. Either way there would have been, apart from God's sovereign hand at work, terrible consequences! If indeed the Sun did revolve around the Earth daily and God instantly stopped it (and there was no suspension of normal physical law) then the Sun would have suffered extremely violent consequences due to the enormous acceleration required for a near instant stop. If the Earth suddenly stopped rotating, then as you note there would be terrible consequences.

Don't you think God is big enough to figure out how to deal with the ramifications of His actions? 

The solar system is heliocentric. 

God stopped the Earth's rotation.

He also figured out how to deal with everything else that is a consequence of the Earth's rotation stopping.

Remember, He's a BIG God. 

This was a supernatural event. I'm not sure why everyone insists on making it act like a merely natural event, and just realize that God can do whatever he wants to do.


----------



## VictorBravo

toddpedlar said:


> Don't you think God is big enough to figure out how to deal with the ramifications of His actions?
> 
> . . . .
> He also figured out how to deal with everything else that is a consequence of the Earth's rotation stopping.
> 
> Remember, He's a BIG God.
> 
> This was a supernatural event. I'm not sure why everyone insists on making it act like a merely natural event, and just realize that God can do whatever he wants to do.



You mean God didn't make a universe so big he couldn't lift it? 

Thanks. I was ready to say the same thing.


----------



## Confessor

Semper Fidelis said:


> If we insisted that all phenomenomological language be turned into literal language then we would have an absolute mess. Even meteorologists speak of the time for sundown and sunset to people who believe in a heleocentric solar system. I know I'm not going to convince the few geocentrists we have here but I believe the Puritans have an established view that recognizes that the light of nature has epistemic warrant to shape our beliefs. Puritans don't hold that our senses are deceiving us into seeing objects rotating around each other. We don't have to doubt that we see the sun rising and the sun setting any more than we would deny that we would see the Earth rotating around the sun if we could stand on it - and we have instruments now that can "see" such things.



I hate to sound ignorant or offensive, but...

We have geocentrists here?


----------



## Zenas

packabacka said:


> I hate to sound ignorant or offensive, but...
> 
> We have geocentrists here?



Honestly, I thought the same thing. Not to be rude.


----------



## Ravens

I have a couple thoughts on this issue, as it is something to which I have given a fair amount of thought (unfortunately, with very little results):

1) Very few, if any of us, on the PB, have actually went through all of the science and mathematical equations pertaining to the sun and it's relation to the earth. That seems so patently obvious that it somewhat embarrasses me to write it. That being said, usually when any person advocates geocentrism, there is normally a decisive and swift "brush off" on the basis of "well, we all *know...*."

I didn't even realize that until this past year or so. I had been taught all of my life that the earth revolved around the sun. I have viewed any and all advocates of geocentrism as painfully embarrassing anachronisms, artifacts of a bygone age that made my apologetic task the more difficult. Then it struck me that, in all of my hidebound *certainty* that geocentrism was wrong, I myself had never done any in-depth calculations, reading, etc., to lead me to that conclusion.

And in that sense, I can see how the charge of hypocrisy in how YEC's treat geocentrism at least enters the discussion. I simply think that a little epistemological humility in the area would be helpful for many of us.

2) As I currently understand it, this issue appears to boil down, not necessarily to an issue of authority, but rather, to an issue of hermeneutics. Really, it's the same issue that tends to perplex me when it comes to the New Testament: How do I responsibly handle an objective text, holding to the literal truth thereof, while yet recognizing that even inspired language doesn't necessarily take a "literalistic" meaning ("This is my body", "I am the door", "You are the salt of the earth", Herod is a fox, etc.). 

Moreover, how do I do that in a consistent way, that it doesn't seem like arbitrary sophistry to an unbeliever. How do I do that in such a way that I'm not breaking my own rules, always selecting the reading of the text that is most favorable to me?

3) For the geocentrists: It seems as if, by and large, the notion of phenomenological language is disregarded. That might not be fair. Perhaps you do accept phenomenological language, but simply think that the manifold references to the moving and course of the sun simply points to something more than that.

Regardless, to continue this "consistency", wouldn't one need to say that there are actual "windows" in the heavens, via which rain comes down to the earth? Does the earth have four corners? Does the earth have "ends"? Are there (or were there, prior to the flood), waters above the raqiya (if you reject the "clouds" interpretation). Are the stars in the firmament? That last one (the stars) has always been tricky to me. I don't know Hebrew (one semester in college that I have since forgotten), so the precise nature of the preposition involved eludes me. But if we reject phenomenological language, wouldn't we have to say that the stars were _in_ the firmament, _under_ the waters?

I have had these questions for awhile (not faith-shaking questions; just questions) and never wanted to post them, simply because I don't want to give those who disagree with YEC, or the inerrancy of Scripture, or unbelievers, any "fodder". But since it is being discussed, those are the questions that I have. 

None of it really causes me to doubt the YEC-view, and that is coming form someone who at various points in their life (until the past couple years) has held to the gap theory, framework, day-age, etc. I don't in the least doubt the genealogies in Genesis, or that man co-existed with "terrible lizards."

However, I do have some serious questions about the consistency of my hermeneutic. I think that an objective, fair interpretation is possible, but I just don't see any way to make someone else, especially unbelievers, see that the choices are justified (say, for YEC, against "windows in the heavens"). 

And on that note, I think I've gone cross-eyed.


----------



## MW

JDWiseman said:


> Regardless, to continue this "consistency", wouldn't one need to say that there are actual "windows" in the heavens, via which rain comes down to the earth? Does the earth have four corners? Does the earth have "ends"? Are there (or were there, prior to the flood), waters above the raqiya (if you reject the "clouds" interpretation). Are the stars in the firmament?



All these are easily understood as figues of speech, not phenomenological language; but the Joshua passage describes a miracle in terms of the sun standing still. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and God hearkened to the voice of the man and made the sun stand still. There is no way to insert the language of phenomenon into the historical narrative without doing violence to the text. If such became hermeneutically acceptable, it would then be possible to posit all kinds of noumenal explanations for the miracles of the Bible in order to make them accord with the science of physics, medicine, etc.


----------



## Ravens

Rev. Winzer,

Admittedly my thinking is muddled on the issue. In light of your recent post, if I were to come across a historical narrative that talked about the windows of heaven (I'm not even sure if there is such a passage off the top of my head), then would I then need to reject that as a figure of speech? If not, precisely why not?

I'm far from being antagonistic. I'm genuinely curious.

Also, what are your thoughts on the stars in the firmament, with the water above the firmament? 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Obviously if the light of nature is pitted against the light of scripture then it cannot be the true light of nature. Back to the drawing board. Certainly reason is needed to understand special revelation, but it ought not on that account to be used to veto what God has written for our learning. Having said that, it should also be noted that there may be a true sense in which the earth revolves around the sun; it is just that because man has not yet grasped the broader picture of the universe he does not yet see how everything connects together.



I noticed you neglected to answer some of my questions. There is a significant difference between first things and things we can now observe. One of the reasons that we accept the testimony of God's Creation account is that He was there. What you would have me believe is that if the Bible states that the gravitational constant is 8.5 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 and I consistently measure 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 then what is to account for this? Do I merely stop doing all Physics because the gravitational constant of the Scriptures is different than what I'm experiencing in the physical world?

Are you telling me that the light of nature is lying to Physicists in this case that they perceive the Earth to be rotating around the Sun? If it is then why can we assume that the light of nature is useful to make any arguments? I've noticed that the Puritans make use of this for the Divine Right of Church Government. What is the difference in the answer that a Baptist might give in return that their conclusions are not the true light of nature because it conflicts with their light of Scripture? The light of nature seems quite useless then as a guide to reason if something as plain as one object rotating around another cannot be detected by our senses.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Semper Fidelis said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilhelmus a Brakel (The Christian's Reasonable Service, 64, 65):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add a scientific flavor to the discussion.
> 
> An article about the relationship between mathematical models and reality.
> http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/modelstest.doc
> 
> A 23 minute geocentristic leaning video:
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/geocenvid.htm
> 
> Various arguments in favor of geocentrism.
> geocexpl.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, which is it? Are we supposed to use the "clear" Biblical data that the earth is in not in motion or the data from the light of nature to convince us of this? If we deny our ability to observe a phenomena as basic as which heavenly bodies are revolving around which heavenly bodies then are we really capable of observing any motion of the stars in their courses above?
> 
> In repudiating Clarkian position on knowledge Rev. Winzer pointed out that Christ Himself told the Scribes and Pharisees that they could read the skies for clear indications of weather patterns and other phenomena, yet we're somehow unable to detect whether or not the earth itself is in motion?
> 
> Can somebody explain why we must distrust the light of nature regarding bodies in motion given a foundationalist viewpoint? Is it the viewpoint of the geocentrist that demons are deceiving us into believing the rotation of the Earth? Is the only "justified true belief" in this case that which God has apparently propositionally revealed according to this air tight "prooftext" for geocentrism?
Click to expand...


Here is a quote from a work of the great Clarkian, Geocentrist, Mathematician Bertrand Russell:

"Before Copernicus, people thought that the earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that "really" the earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of sun and stars is only "apparent"... But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two... Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the earth... But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. It is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient." Russell "The ABC of Relativity [ London: Allen & Unwin, 1958, p.13].

Now you can discount him due to his Clarkian tendencies but at least it is another perspective.

CT


----------



## Mushroom

> But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two...



Didn't I say that awhile back, in my own uneducated way? Do I get a brownie point or somethin'? Us dumb guys need a stroke now n agin, ya know.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> Are you telling me that the light of nature is lying to Physicists in this case that they perceive the Earth to be rotating around the Sun? If it is then why can we assume that the light of nature is useful to make any arguments? I've noticed that the Puritans make use of this for the Divine Right of Church Government. What is the difference in the answer that a Baptist might give in return that their conclusions are not the true light of nature because it conflicts with their light of Scripture? The light of nature seems quite useless then as a guide to reason if something as plain as one object rotating around another cannot be detected by our senses.



First, as to the senses -- what man has gone far enough into space to be able to look at the solar system in its totality and say that he plainly saw the earth revolving around the sun or vice versa? Common sense teaches that a man needs to take a step back from a situation in order to gain a proper perspective of it.

Second, positive questions like church government and baptism are essentially different from natural science. The light of nature respecting positive questions only serves to show moral norms lying behind the questions, and even such "light" is often supported by the general rules of Scripture. But in natural science the "light of nature" is an ongoing discovery. The men who advocate this or that position do not do so as an absolute certainty, but are open to be corrected by future discoveries. That being the case, their discoveries can hardly be classified as "natural light."

Third, the light of nature does not lie to physicists, but a physicist might misunderstand the data presented to him. This is what has taken place with regard to the question of the age of matter; there is no reason why it might not also be the case with regard to motion. I clarify again, it is not necessary to conclude that the calculation is wrong, but merely that the calculation is not being properly understood within the bigger picture that only God can see.


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> Here is a quote from a work of the great Clarkian, Geocentrist, Mathematician Bertrand Russell:
> 
> "Before Copernicus, people thought that the earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that "really" the earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of sun and stars is only "apparent"... But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two... Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the earth... But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. It is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient." Russell "The ABC of Relativity [ London: Allen & Unwin, 1958, p.13].
> 
> Now you can discount him due to his Clarkian tendencies but at least it is another perspective.
> 
> CT



My mind has just exploded. I never thought of it that way.

As far as we believe the Earth is central in God's plan, we have no reason to believe it is not that way in the solar system (we also have no reason to believe it is that way). We can even treat equations with the presupposition that the sun stands still, for the sake of calculation, but we really have no reason to believe that.


----------



## py3ak

Thanks for posting that from Russell, CT. As I was reading through the thread I was thinking I needed to pull out the similar quote from _The History of Western Philosophy_. 

To Jacob, I would say that the Russell quote should go a long way towards helping your friend realize that a pat objection like that based on unphilosophical science is not exactly a strong argument.

I also remember a rather odd Star Trek book, though I don't recall the title, where Kirk thought an alien species' physics was absurd (they conceived of their ship as a fixed point, and that instead of moving space they tugged on the universe to bring that part of it they wanted to them: Spock said that from their point of view they were correct and it was no good contradicting them). Rarely, in theological discussion, do we get to invoke the high authority of Spock. Enjoy!


----------

