Early Christians knew nothing about geology or orogeny and so can be forgiven. You, however, have access to plenty of knowledge and choose to ignore it. You are much harder to forgive. We know how fossils get onto mountains, and it isn’t from flooding. Your faith in creationism despite everything we know of science isn’t touching; rather, it’s appalling.
3 Likes
Maybe they believed in “mountain fixity” haha (I’d have to check the references) so maybe you and I have more in common scientifically.
I didn’t expect you to be touched, though that’d be cool. Appalling is fine. I am an ogre after all.
That’s true, but @jeffb is correct too.
His starting point is Scripture, rather a particular reading of Scripture, one which demands evidence is interpreted in light of a young earth.
The starting point of most scientists is not a particular conclusion about the evidence (e.g. evolution, creation, or a particular age of the earth), but an attempt to understand the evidence.
So yes, the starting point does in fact matter. It should be obvious that discussion of scientific evidence is largely a sideshow for someone like @jeffb .
What I am curious about is:
3 Likes
You have misplaced your ire, Valerie. It is the creationist organizations that have published those silly ideas that have your insulted your intelligence and mine.
Leading Biblical scholars in the 16th and 17th century (among them Luther, Calvin, and Cardinal Bellarmine) were horrified that heretical scientists like Copernicus and Galileo had the audacity to argue, against all of God’s clear and irrefutable revelation in the Scriptures, that the earth revolved around the sun. They were certain that the heretics were led astray by arrogance, and the certainty of geocentrism would be confirmed as more evidence was discovered.
Is it possible that this history is relevant to our discussion today?
If you think of 300 years ago as early Christian, I suppose Steno’s Herbarium of the Deluge (1709) would qualify.
Paleontologists of Christian and other faith persuasions have discovered a lot of fossils since 1709 that should also be considered, I am sure you would agree. Our friend @faded_Glory addressed the question of fossil distribution quite capably in post 165 in this very thread. What do you think of his post?
Best,
Chris
2 Likes
That isn’t really a fair history here.
Yes, but what intrigues me is the need to falsely label those things as evidence.
Have you evaluated any claims of creationists on any matter? What do you mean by evaluation?
You seem to think that it has something to say against evolution, no?
Have they been right in any of their scientific proposals? Note how you’re moving away from the terminology of science.
If they are scientific proposals, we call them hypotheses and test their empirical predictions. Has that been done? Why do you call them proposals and not hypotheses?
You’re conflating Scripture itself with your tribe’s hyperselectively hyperliteral (anything but holistic) interpretations of it. Or did you arrive at this interpretation independently of joining your tribe?
Do you think that any creation scientists are even trying?
Are there any exploring them? Why interpretations instead of hypotheses? Why exploring instead of testing?
Do you see that you reject the scientific method itself?
Which ones, specifically? I’d like to see documentation for that claim.
Science doesn’t choose models, it tests hypotheses and trashes those that don’t work. Pseudoscience uses euphemisms to dance around that process, as you have done throughout.
2 Likes
Can you point me to a single instance of Jeff interpreting any evidence at all?
Yet it’s just as obvious that the pretense of addressing the evidence is central.
2 Likes
Flippant comments that ignore, perhaps refuse even to think about, any point the other person may be trying to make are neither useful nor considerate.
1 Like
It wasn’t that, but the manner in which you set up the questions.
I think I don’t know enough about the subject to comment.
I was reviewing some of the history online, but it seems fellow scientists and the general public weren’t thrilled about their views. From what I just read, it wasn’t as if it was the church against science, but geocentric views were entrenched in what was science then as well as the church. It looked like Copernicus was politically savvy, and Galileo was not, which got him in trouble more than his views themselves.
So I don’t see the relevance to today - maybe to Darwin’s day. But right now the scientific consensus is against creationism, and almost any political power bans spreading of such audacious ideas. It’d be sort of amusing if creationists starting comparing themselves to Galileo actually…
IMO it is very much fair to say that these theologians condemned the heresy of heliocentrism and anticipated that any future scientific discoveries would be in accord with clear revelation.
Calvin referred to heliocentrists (in a sermon on I Corinthians 10-11) as “madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses.”
It is thought that Luther was referring to Copernicus when, at a table talk on the subject of Joshua 10:12, he stated:
“There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”
And of course we know that Bellarmine put Galileo under house arrest for his views. Galileo’s impertinence was no doubt a contributing factor, but the heart of the matter was Galileo’s views on geocentrism and heliocentrism.
Here’s additional material on Calvin:
his opinion of heliocentrism is not in question. His sermon on I Corinthians 10 - 11 is what we moderns would call a “scorched earth attack” on the monstrous and demonic idea!
“[The Christian is not to compromise so as to obscure the distinction between good and evil, and is to avoid the errors of] those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and pervert the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds we must indeed confess that the devil possesses them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence. When they are told: ‘That is hot,’ they will reply: ‘No, it is plainly cold.’ When they are shown an object that is black, they will say that it is white, or vice versa. Just like the man who said that snow is black; for although it is perceived and known by all to be white, yet he clearly wished to contradict the fact. And so it is that they are madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses.”
It seems misleading to state that Calvin didn’t mention any Scriptures in his discourse on I Corinthians and thus (it would seem) to attempt to exonerate him from the charge of misinterpreting Scripture. Calvin’s copious commentaries tie many specific Biblical passages to geocentrism. I will only mention two in this comment. The first is Psalm 93:1, about which Calvin comments:
"The heavens revolve daily, and immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion–nod disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air if not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? " [Emphasis mine]
In modern English, Psalm 93:1 states:
The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed; he has put on strength as his belt.
Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
- English Standard Version
One can understand how Calvin would read this verse in a geocentric fashion; does it not state that the world shall never be moved?
Calvin also saw geocentrism in Psalm 104:5, as demonstrated by this commentary:
“Here the prophet celebrates the glory of God, as manifested in the
stability of the earth. Since it is suspended in the midst of the air,
and is supported only by pillars of water, how does it keep its place so
stedfastly that it cannot be moved? This I indeed grant may be
explained on natural principles; for the earth, as it occupies the
lowest place, being the center of the world, naturally settles down
there.”
Again, a glance at the verse shows how Calvin could draw the conclusion that the Scripture supported geocentrism:
He set the earth on its foundations,
so that it should never be moved. - English Standard Version
I agree that we should not hold Calvin’s ancient view of astronomy against him; in his time, the heliocentric view was in its infancy and not yet well established by the data.
Having said all this, there is no authority on the subject like @TedDavis, and I welcome any corrections or nuance he cares to add.
Best,
Chris
7 Likes
I don’t think that is true.
That is not condemning them as heretics. This was also before the science of heliocentrism was established.
This also was stated before the science of heliocentrism established, in an informal setting as a personal sense of disbelief, not as a doctrinal pronouncement.
Lutherans welcome heliocentrists in Lutheran universities to make their case. It was Lutheran presses that printed Astronomia Nova, and Kepler was a Lutheran.
I’ve heard historians argue that the heart of the matter was his negative statements about the pope’s authority, and his statements about the Bible, not actually his heliocentrism. Remember, it was a Catholic university that hosted and encouraged Kepler in his work in heliocentrism.
Exactly. Moreover, whatever Calvin’s opinions at the time, it never became heresy among Calvinists.
Rather, it was a very surprising and nonintuitive idea. So a lot of people reacted negatively at first, but then quickly moved to different points of view when the data came in.
1 Like
You raise an interesting point here. Should Luther and Calvin’s fiery denouncements of heliocentrists really be classified as charges of heresy? Or as something a bit less robust?
Comparing Calvin’s and Luther’s statements to statements by Ken Ham and ICR about “godless scientists,” I’d say they are at least as vehement and accusatory. Whether you classify them as charges of heresy or not, the critical point I want to make is that the behavior and the statements then (Calvin and Luther) and now (AIG and ICR) are basically the same.
As for Bellarmine vs. Galileo, the use of the term heresy is quite apt: Galileo’s books were added to the Librorum Prohibitorum.
This is a subsequent development, and is therefore not germane to what I wrote. I did not discuss Lutheranism, I discussed Luther. Different things.
Galileo challenged the Church’s authority to propagate geocentrism based on traditional interpretations of passages in Scripture. It is perhaps more precise to state that the heart of the matter was whether adherence to scientific theories should be constrained by traditional interpretations of Scripture.
Bellarmine’s stance was fundamentally the same stance expressed in this very thread by YEC advocates: The Bible is very clear on every topic it touches, including science. If your empirical observations seem to dispute a clear Biblical teaching such as, in Bellarmine v. Galileo, geocentrism, the Bible wins.
Thanks for helping me add nuance and detail, Joshua!
Best,
Chris
4 Likes
The topics here seem to be (a) what about Galileo and the Catholic Church? (b) what did Cardinal Bellarmine say about Copernicanism and the Bible? (c) what did Luther and Calvin say about Copernicanism and the Bible? and (d) is all of that history actually relevant to the creationism controversy today?
It’s very hard to give short, reliable answers to (a). I won’t try. But, some of my views are embedded in the answers below.
For (b), lets go right to the source, Bellarmine’s letter to Catholic priest Paolo Foscarini, who wrote a book defending Copernicanism with certain biblical texts: At the Roots of the 1616 Decree: Robert Bellarmine’s Letter to Paolo Foscarini | Inters.org.
For (b) and (c), listen to this podcast (about 60 minutes): Episode 126: Galileo – Veracity Hill.
For (d), with information on (a) and (b), go here: Galileo and the Garden of Eden: The Principle of Accommodation and the Book of Genesis - Articles - BioLogos. This post was based on a published essay in an academic book that can be obtained, realistically, only in some university libraries: Chapter Thirteen. Galileo And The Garden Of Eden: Historical Reflections On Creationist Hermeneutics in: Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700-Present.
However, I will send the essay privately to interested persons upon request.
Just two specific comments on this thread, so far. (1) Bellarmine was dead when Galileo’s book was placed on the Index and he was put under house arrest. One might say that Bellarmine’s ghost played a role in that, but others were responsible for it. (2) Calvin was unquestionably a geocentrist, and some of the pertinent passages are identified above. As I state in the podcast, however, almost everyone before 1610 (when Galileo published The Starry Messenger) was a geocentrist; this is of no greater import than saying that Robert Boyle believed the earth was created around 4004 BC (his father had known Archbishop Ussher, and Boyle accepted Ussher’s then state-of-the-art chronology). Calvin began his university education at Paris, where mabye (I haven’t seen his transcript) he took the standard introductory course in astronomy that most universities then required. The text used at Paris and many other universities had been written by a famous Parisian professor of the 13th century, namely, the English monk John of Sacrobosco. Like every other medieval astronomy text, it teaches both the Earth’s round shape and its place in the center of the universe. Whether or not he read Sacrobosco, Calvin knew what that book teaches, including the fact that Saturn is much larger than the Moon—a point Calvin mentions in his commentary on Genesis 1:16, where he appeals to accommodation to say that Moses didn’t intend to teach astronomy. That’s how he handles what he believes is the literal sense of that text, according to which the Sun and Moon are the two largest bodies in the heavens. Here’s the most important point: Calvin’s French sermon on 1 Cor 10-11 does refer pejoratively to “these madmen who have a spirit of such venomous contradiction, contriving to gainsay everything and perverting the very order of nature.” He means those who say “that the sun does not budge, and that it is the earth that bestirs itself and that turns around [qui se remue et qu’elle tourne].” (Luther’s off-the-cuff remark about Copernicus had a similar tone: he treated Copernicus’ frankly crazy idea as an outrageous claim, as if Copernicus were a 16th Century version of Lady Gaga, who seeks to draw attention to herself by being outrageous.) In fact, Calvin probably did NOT refer here to the Copernican view, despite appearances. Probably, he had in mind Cicero’s Academica, where the character Hicetas holds that the earth spins on its axis diurnally in the center of the world, but does not circle about the sun. For the details, see Christopher Kaiser, “Calvin, Copernicus, and Castellio,” Calvin Theological Journal 21 (April 1986): 5-31.
5 Likes
We have evidence from astronomy that physical laws have been constant for the observable history of the universe. IF those physical laws have changed, then we should expect observable evidence as a result. We don’t see any such evidence.
There is no intent to be silly or insulting, this boils down to the laws of physics. For all the objections YECs have to evolution, the laws of physics are a far greater problem to creation science. If you aren’t already familiar with the RATE project, here is a nice summary.
Good! You shouldn’t be. 
4 Likes
A further review of RATE, by a Geology Professor specialising in Geochronology can be found here:
1 Like
unique phenomena that conform to the laws of physics. → extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
fictitious laws of physics that no one has ever observed. → non-scientific claim
fictitious laws of physics that no one has ever observed, and is self inconsistent (ie ignores conservation laws) → irrational claim.
5 Likes
A hugely significant question!
Unfortunately that’s not one that can be answered quickly.
And I see there’s been some good discussion going on here that’s tempting to jump in on. So much to say, so little time!
But I really need to stick to one thread at a time, and try finish up the other one that I’ve been on for a while. Perhaps another day on this topic…
1 Like
Perhaps the most famous (at least among historians) refutation of flood geology is this paper: Science in Christian Perspective
A pioneer in C-14 dating and some other important areas of science, Kulp had written this paper for the 1949 annual meeting of the ASA. He wasn’t able to attend himself, but when it was delivered by Marie Fetzer, George McCready Price heard it. For more of this story, go to The History of the American Scientific Affiliation - Articles - BioLogos.
4 Likes
Absolutely. Engaging is a two-way street. There’s good science and bad science. Good theology and bad. Having discussions, patiently, with one another (while listening to one another) is the best way to work through it. Not listening and responding robotically to key-words is not the best way to handle it. Hearing sound evidence and dismissing it is not a good way.
We aren’t born pre-programmed with the facts, but we are born with the ability to listen and sort through the evidence suggested. This is the discourse that should take place in a forum like PS. But, even if people choose to not listen, or to take their ball and go home, there are other curious folks who are reading and wondering, and for their sake we should also continue the dialog.
Yes, you hit the nail on the head, here! A tough call if the two issues at play are “science” and “theology.” If one doesn’t want to look (for now) at the evidence, and is currently unwilling to consider an alternate theological position (even if it is considered to be mainstream by the vast majority of theologians) then this kind of discussion won’t make much difference. Except, maybe, to the others who are reading but not participating in the discussion.
2 Likes
If one doesn’t want to look at the evidence, one should not claim that one’s position is supported by the evidence. It doesn’t make sense, particularly in the context of defending a religion that commands its adherents to not bear false witness.
IOW, if you claim that the evidence supports your position, you need to be a witness to that evidence, not merely what anyone says about that evidence.
3 Likes