No Evolution and No Heliocentric System - Some Help Needed

[ChristianTrader]

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

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?

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]

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]

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!