I'm interested to know what everyone thinks, because besides being a fascinating subject in itself, this seems to me to be of serious cultural and spiritual importance. The universal mental picture of Earth as peripheral and insignificant, one of the obscurest among a myriad inhabited planets, must have done more to undermine the Biblical world-view than almost anything else except biological evolution (to which it's closely related).
This isn't intended as a question for scientists, and I don't mean to start a technical discussion of the scientific evidence for or against. As a non-scientist, I have to approach it differently.
My starting point is just the fact that there IS scientific evidence for geocentricity. Who even knew that?? It seems to be a remarkably well-kept secret as far as the average layman is concerned.
I have only now discovered (for eg) that for the purpose of predicting eclipses and so on, the geocentric model and the heliocentric fit equally well with observational evidence. It's just that this fact gets no publicity: not surprisingly when for any serious astronomer to suggest that the evidence points to geocentricity would mean the instant loss of all academic credibility (it's exactly the same with Young Earth Creationism). There are many who do think so, but their views are not going to make headlines any time soon.
However (this is the crux) if there is "good enough" scientific support for both positions without demonstrable consensus, - shouldn't Christians be looking to the Bible to tell us which is the true model?
- and surely Scripture on balance asserts geocentricity much more unambiguously than it could possibly be said to assert the contrary.
Besides, Earth is undeniably the spiritual centre of all things, so failing extraordinarily conclusive counter-evidence, one would naturally expect it also to be physically central (as is in fact powerfully implied in the account of Creation week).
Finally, as soon as I question how come in that case heliocentricity could have gained universal credence - I know the answer.
This isn't intended as a question for scientists, and I don't mean to start a technical discussion of the scientific evidence for or against. As a non-scientist, I have to approach it differently.
My starting point is just the fact that there IS scientific evidence for geocentricity. Who even knew that?? It seems to be a remarkably well-kept secret as far as the average layman is concerned.
I have only now discovered (for eg) that for the purpose of predicting eclipses and so on, the geocentric model and the heliocentric fit equally well with observational evidence. It's just that this fact gets no publicity: not surprisingly when for any serious astronomer to suggest that the evidence points to geocentricity would mean the instant loss of all academic credibility (it's exactly the same with Young Earth Creationism). There are many who do think so, but their views are not going to make headlines any time soon.
However (this is the crux) if there is "good enough" scientific support for both positions without demonstrable consensus, - shouldn't Christians be looking to the Bible to tell us which is the true model?
- and surely Scripture on balance asserts geocentricity much more unambiguously than it could possibly be said to assert the contrary.
Besides, Earth is undeniably the spiritual centre of all things, so failing extraordinarily conclusive counter-evidence, one would naturally expect it also to be physically central (as is in fact powerfully implied in the account of Creation week).
Finally, as soon as I question how come in that case heliocentricity could have gained universal credence - I know the answer.