Dr. Gerald Aardsma's paper is published on the Institute for Creation
Research web-site. It is reproduced here for convenience with a few editorial
comments (marked [PRS] ).
1. What is geocentricity?
Geocentricity is a conceptual model of the form of the universe which makes
three basic assertions about the nature of the earth and its relationship to
the rest of the universe. These are:
a. the earth is the center of the universe,
b. the earth is fixed (i.e., immobile) in space, and
c. the earth is unique and special compared to all other heavenly bodies.
2. What is the History of geocentricity?
The teaching of geocentricity can be traced in western thought at least
back to Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Aristotle argued, for example, that the
reason why all bodies fall to the ground is because they seek their natural
place at the center of the universe which coincides with the center of the
earth.
A geocentric model of the universe seems first to have been formalized by
Ptolemy, the famous Greek astronomer who lived in Alexandria around A.D. 130.
Ptolemy's model envisioned each planet moving in a small circle, the center of
which moved along a large circular orbit about the earth. This model was
generally accepted until Copernicus published his heliocentric model in 1543.
The heliocentric view pictures the sun as motionless at the center of the
solar system with all the planets, including the earth, in motion around it. [The irrelevant "solar system" is introduced here, Copernicus
knew of no such concept. Until Newton the heliocentric view pictured the sun
motionless at the centre of the universe. PRS] Copernicus' heliocentric
model, because it used circles to describe the orbits of the planets about the
sun instead of ellipses, was as clumsy and inaccurate as Ptolemy's geocentric
model. However, it was conceptually simpler. It quickly gained acceptance,
though not without considerable controversy. The conflict between these two
views came to a head in the well-known trial of Galileo by the Inquisition in
1632.
Starting from a heliocentric viewpoint, Kepler (1571-1630) was able to
formulate laws of planetary motion which accurately described the orbits of
the planets for the first time. Newton (1643-1727) was then able to explain
why Kepler's laws worked based upon his famous law of gravity. This tremendous
progress in understanding resulted in almost universal acceptance of
heliocentricity and rejection of geocentricity.
3. What does modern science say about geocentricity?
Many attempts were made to prove that heliocentricity was true and
geocentricity was false, right up until the early 1900's. All such attempts
were unsuccessful. The most well-known of these is the Michelson-Morley
experiment which was designed to measure the change in the speed of light, due
to the assumed motion of the earth through space, when measured in different
directions on the earth's surface. The failure of this experiment to detect
any significant change played an important role in the acceptance of
Einstein's theory of special relativity.
The theory of special relativity holds as a basic assumption that the speed
of light will always be the same everywhere in the universe irrespective of
the relative motion of the source of the light and the observer. The ability
of special relativity to successfully explain many non-intuitive physical
phenomena which are manifested by atomic particles when moving at speeds
greater than about one-tenth the speed of light seems to corroborate this
assumption. Thus, the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and all
other experiments of similar intent) to detect any motion of the earth through
space is understood by modern science in terms of relativity rather than
geocentricity.
Einstein's theory of general relativity adds further to the debate.
It asserts that it is impossible for a human observer to determine whether any
material body is in a state of absolute rest (i.e., immobile in space). It
claims that only motion of two material bodies relative to one another can be
physically detected. According to this theory the geocentric and heliocentric
viewpoints are equally valid representations of reality, and it makes no sense
whatsoever scientifically to speak of one as being true and the other false.
This shift in emphasis from an either-or argument to a synthesis and
acceptance of both viewpoints is summed up by the well-known astronomer, Fred
Hoyle, as follows:
The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is
reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the
Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related
to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a
physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is
'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense.[1]
Relativity is the theory which is accepted as the correct one by the great
majority of scientists at present. However, many science teachers and
textbooks are not aware of this, and it is not uncommon to find
heliocentricity taught as the progressive and "obviously true"
theory even today. [Even Relativists, who admit that they have no way of
telling if the earth is stationary or not, will nevertheless, usually
subscribe to the idea it is "obviously true" that the earth orbits
the sun. Carl Sagan is typical - see the Small Blue Dot articles. PRS]
4. What does the Bible teach about geocentricity?
To learn what the Bible teaches regarding geocentricity, it is necessary to
consider separately the three basic assertions of uniqueness, centrality, and
fixity mentioned above since the composite "theory of geocentricity"
is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.
The assertion that the earth is unique and special (item "c"
above) is clearly and unequivocally taught in the first chapter of Genesis.
The plain sense of the creation account is that all other heavenly bodies were
not even brought into existence until the fourth day of creation. Thus, God
had already created the earth, separated the waters above and below the
atmosphere, formed the earth into continents and oceans, and brought forth
vegetation upon the earth before He paused to create the solar system, the
Milky Way, and all of the other material bodies in the universe. It is very
clear that the creation of the earth was distinct from that of any other
heavenly body.
The Biblical doctrine of the uniqueness of the earth is strongly supported
by modern space exploration. In particular, every effort by scientists to
demonstrate that life does or possibly could exist on other planets in our
solar system has so far failed. Such efforts have only served to underscore
how different the earth is in this regard from all other heavenly bodies which
we have been able to study. While the earth teems with life, elsewhere space
appears to be only barren and incredibly hostile to life. The earth gives
every indication that it was specially designed for life, and it is unique in
this regard.
In contrast to the bountiful evidence in the Bible which teaches that the
earth is special, nowhere is it taught that the earth is the center of the
universe (item "a" above). In fact, the Bible provides no explicit
teaching on any questions relating to the form of the universe. We are not
told, for example, whether the universe is finite or infinite, and no explicit
statement can be found to help us know whether space is flat or curved. This
is the type of information we would need to deduce whether the earth is at the
center of the universe or if it even makes sense to say that the universe has
a center. On matters relating to the physical form of the universe, the Bible
is mute.
This leaves the more controversial assertion (item "b" above)
that the earth is motionless in space to be discussed.
In fact, the Bible contains no explicit teaching on this matter either.
Nowhere does the Bible set about to deal explicitly with the question of
whether the earth is moving through space or not. To be sure, one can fashion
implicit arguments for an immobile earth from the Bible, but in no instance do
the Bible verses used to accomplish this goal rest in a context of an overall
discussion of the physical form of the universe. [But then, neither do
verses used to support special creation rest in a context of an overall
discussion of biology or geology. PRS]
Evidently, while the physical form of the universe is an interesting
scientific issue, it is not of very great importance Biblically. The lack of
explicit Biblical teaching on this whole matter makes it impossible to call
any conceptual model of the form of the universe "the Biblical
view." [Dr. John Byl concludes the opposite, that the geocentricity
question is of scriptural relevance but not scientific. See his article "Another
Look at Galileo". PRS]
5. What is the role of geocentricity in creationism?
The Biblical status of the doctrine of creation contrasts sharply with that
of geocentricity. The Bible opens with the explicit declaration: "In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and Genesis 1
goes on to outline in detail the doctrine of creation. While it is impossible to
find any definitive teaching in the Bible on the physical form of the
universe, it is impossible to miss the explicit teaching in the Bible
that the world was supernaturally created by God, for it permeates Scripture.
Geocentricity and creationism are really separate matters. Because of the
contrast in the way the Bible deals with these two issues, I believe that
attempts to link geocentricity and creationism are ill-founded. [I suggest
the extract from Teilhard de Chardin ("de
Chardin's View") makes a strong case that Aardsma may have missed
something important here. PRS]
6. What can we learn of general importance from the
geocentricity-helio-centricity relativity debate?
Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the history of
geocentricity is in connection with the question, "What role should
scientific discovery play in the interpretation of the Bible?" It is
surely ironic to see the incident of Galileo's trial before the Inquisition
paraded as a supposedly unarguable illustration of the "mistake"
recent-creationists make when they insist on a literal, supernatural, six-day
creation and fail to yield to modern scientific views of how the universe came
to be. "After all," we hear, "the theologians said that
Galileo's heliocentric viewpoint was heresy, but now everybody knows that the
theologians were wrong and Galileo was right."
In actual fact, as we have seen above, the current scientific consensus is
that "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory [which Galileo held]
is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory [which the theologians held] 'wrong' in
any meaningful physical sense."[1]
The generally overlooked lesson here is that scientific theories do not
provide a very secure basis from which to interpret Scripture. In the course
of the last five hundred years the weight of scientific consensus has rested
in turn with each of three different theories about the form of the universe:
first geocentricity, then helio-centricity, and now relativity.
This is the way it is with scientific theories—they come and go. But the
Word of God endures forever. Let us be immovable in upholding what the Bible
clearly teaches.
References
[1] Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus (London:
Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973), p. 78.
Bibliography
Bouw, D. "The Bible and Geocentricity." Bulletin of the
Tychonian Society, no. 41 (January, 1987), 22-25. (A more recent work by
Bouw is: Geocentricity [Cleveland: Association for Biblical
Astronomy, 1992].)
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational
Books Ltd., 1973.
Reichenbach, Hans. From Copernicus to Einstein. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc., 1980.
Ronan, Colin Alistair. "Copernicus" The New Encyclopedia
Britannica. 15th ed. XVI, 814-815.
* Dr. Aardsma is Assistant Professor of Astro Geophyics at ICR.