Geocentrism and Creation
[ Home ] [ Up ]

Geocentrism and Creation

Danny R. Faulkner

transcribed by Brian Shortridge

Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not
begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric
(or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago. These people believe
that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move, and hence the
only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentric one. Modern geocentrists
use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. We examine these
arguments, and find them poorly founded. The Scriptural passages quoted do
not address cosmology. Some geocentrists draw distinctions that do not exist
in the original autographs or even in translations. In short, the Bible is
neither geocentric nor heliocentric. While geocentrists present some
interesting scientific results, their scientific arguments are often based
upon improper understanding of theories and data. Much of their case is
based upon a misunderstanding of general relativity and the rejection of
that theory. While geocentrists are well intended, their presence among
recent creationists produces an easy object of ridicule by our critics.

---------------------

Many critics of creationists attempt to malign by suggesting that what
creationists teach is akin to belief in a flat Earth. This attack is easy to
refute, because the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat, and
virtually no one in the history of the church taught this. In fact, the
belief in a flat Earth is a 19th century myth that was concocted to
discredit critics of Darwinism. The supposed lesson of this myth was that
the Church got it wrong before, so the Church has a chance to redeem itself
by getting it right on the issue of evolution. This false lesson has been
indelibly impressed upon common perception.

However, the Church did support the wrong side of a scientific issue four
centuries ago. That issue was the question of whether the Sun went around
the Earth (geocentrism) or if the Earth went around the Sun (heliocentrism,
which could be called geokinetism since the Sun is not regarded as the
centre of the universe either, as discussed below). Being based upon real
history, creationists in theory could be accused of repeating this mistake
by rejecting evolution.

Alas, there are recent creationists in the world today who are geocentrists.
They teach that the rejection of God's Word did not begin with Darwin's
theory of biological evolution or even with Hutton and Lyell's geological
uniformitarianism. Instead, they argue that the scientific rebellion
against God began much earlier with heliocentrism.

Many evolutionist claim that disbelief in evolution is like disbelief that
the Earth goes round the Sun. The obvious flaw is that the latter is
repeatable and observable while the former is not. But geocentrists give
evolutionists a target, so then it behoves the creation community to have a
ready response.

So far, there have been few critiques of geocentrism in the creation
literature. One example is Don DeYoung's defence of geokineticism in
Creation magazine, where he presented some scientific arguments against a
rigid geocentric view.(1) DeYoung has also debated a geocentrist called
Martin Selbrede.(2)

Another is Aardsma's ICR Impact article, where he points out something well
known to high-school physics students, but apparently not to bibliosceptics
- that it's valid to describe motion from any reference frame, although an
inertial one usually makes the mathematics simpler.(3) But there are many
times when the Earth is a convenient reference frame; i.e. at some point we
all use the geocentric model in one sense. For instance, a planetarium is a
geocentric model. Calculation of rising, transiting, and setting of various
celestial objects is calculated geocentrically. There are numerous other
examples. Since modern astronomers often use an Earth-centred reference
frame, it's unfair and anti-scientific to criticise the Bible for doing the
same.

But this is hardly the issue, and the use of the geocentric model under
these circumstances hardly makes one a geocentrist. I'm using the term to
describe those who claim that the Earth is the only valid reference frame
and oppose the use of any other reference frame. What we need is an
examination of the claims of such geocentric creationists to see if there is
any merit to what they claim. The claims will fall into three broad areas:
1) the Biblical issues 2) historical record and 3) scientific evidence.

Perhaps the best-known geocentrist in the world today is Gerardus Bouw, who
has been a professor at Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, Ohio for many
years. He is founder and director of the Association for Biblical Astronomy,
as well as editor of Biblical Astronomer. Both are organs for geocentrism.
To distinguish modern geocentrism from ancient geocentrism, Bouw has coined
the term 'geocentricity' for the former. Bouw has a Ph.D. in astronomy from
Case Western Reserve University, so he certainly is in a position to know
and understand the issues and literature involved. Given Bouw's stature as
the chief champion of geocentricity, we will use his book by the same name
as the primary source on the topic.(4) A much lesser source is a book by
Marshall Hall.(5) This book is poorly written, and thus will not be treated
as a primary source for discussing modern geocentrism. However, Hall's
claims is examined in a separate book review in this issue (pp. 36-37).
---end page 110-----

Biblical issues

Early in his book Bouw quotes the atheist Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) and
the supposedly agnostic(6) Augustus De Morgan (1806 - 1871) on the supposed
geocentric nature of the Bible.(7) The appropriateness of quoting these two
gentlemen apparently never occurred to Bouw. Since when did two mathematical
logicians become authorities in Biblical exegesis (like most bibliosceptics,
they were ignorant of Biblical languages and historical context(8))? Being
antagonistic toward the Bible and Christianity, both(6) of these men had a
vested interest in discrediting the Bible. What better way to do this than
for them to falsely claim that the Bible says things that are patently not
true? This straw man technique is a very common strategy in attacking the
Bible. A good example is the supposedly incorrect value of pi in 1 Kings
7:23-24 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, a topic that Bouw addresses very well.(9)

Bouw does quote(10) an anonymous evangelical source on the geocentric nature
of the Bible, but one must ask if that is indeed what Scripture teaches.
There are few Biblical texts that in any way even remotely address the
heliocentric/geocentric question. In each instance there is considerable
doubt as to whether cosmology is the issue. Some of these verses are in the
poetic books, such as the Psalms. It is poor practice to build any teaching
or doctrine solely or primarily upon passages from the poetic books, thought
they can amplify concepts clearly taught elsewhere. It is also important not
to base doctrines upon any passage that at best only remotely addresses an
issue. That is, if cosmology is clearly not the point of a passage, then
extracting a cosmological meaning can be very dangerous.

The Galileo canard

In the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church
did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? The Church's
response to Galileo (1564 - 1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle
(384 - 322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It was Augustine (AD
354 - 430), Thomas Aquinas (1224 - 1274) and others who 'baptized ' the work
of these pagans and termed them 'pre_Christian Christians'. This mingling of
pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church
eventually paid a tremendous price.

Confusion persists to today in that nearly every textbook that discusses the
Galileo affair claims that it was a matter of religion vs. science, when it
actually was a matter of science vs science. Unfortunately, Church leaders
interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the argument
for what science of the day was claiming. This mistake is identical to those
today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the big bang,
billions of years, or biological evolution.(11) Therefore, any evangelical
Christian misinformed of this history who opines that the Bible is
geocentric is hardly any more credible a source on this topic than an
atheist or agnostic.

Flat Earth myth

In his second chapter Bouw discusses the allegation that the Bible teaches
that the Earth is flat. His refutation is good,(12) except that he
apparently accepts the notion that through the Middle Ages belief in a flat
Earth was common, which is simply not true. The historian Russell demolished
this idea,(13) and I have written on this as well.(14) This includes the
urban myth that Columbus was a lonely voice for a round Earth, invented by
Washington Irving in his 1828 book The Life and Voyages of Christopher
Columbus, a self-confessed mixture of fact and fiction.

Biblical support for geocentrism?

In the second chapter, Bouw also develops what he considers a Biblical model
of the Earth's structure.(15) Others would legitimately question the
soundness of his Biblical argument here. Much of this model and what follows
in the next chapter is based upon a distinction of the words 'world' and
'Earth' in the KJV. While this distinction is generally true, it is not
obvious that the distinction is universal, and it is the original languages
of Scripture that matter, not any translation.

'... it cannot be moved'

Bouw quotes part of Psalm 93:1 from the KJV, '... the world also is
stablished, that it cannot be moved'.(16) He claims that 'stablish' is the
proper translation as opposed to 'establish', that is used in most modern
translations. He states that the former word means to stabilize, while the
latter means to set up. However, none of the English dictionaries (including
the Oxford) I consulted support this distinction. All of the dictionaries
revealed that 'stablish' is an archaic variation of 'establish'. Bouw
further alleges that this subtle distinction is also present in the Hebrew.
This is patently not true, as can be demonstrated with Strong's
Concordance.(17) The Hebrew word used in Psalm 93:1 is kûwn, which is
translated as 'stablish', 'stablished', and 'stablisheth' only one time each
outside of Psalm 93:1. The same word is translated as 'establish', or
'established', 58 times elsewhere in the KJV. A closely related Hebrew word,
qûwm is translated 'stablish' three times and as 'establish' or
'established' 28 times in the KJV. Indeed kûwn appears twice in 2 Samuel
7:12-13, but is rendered 'establish' and 'stablish' in the same passage.
Thus the distinction that Bouw claims in these two words does not exist in
either Hebrew or English.

Bouw uses this unfounded distinction to draw some questionable meaning from
1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10,(18) where the word 'establish' is used
in the latter verse.
---end page 111-----
These passages declare that the world is not to be moved, from which Bouw
concludes that the world does not move.

This is fallacious. The Hebrew word for 'moved' (mowt) is in the niphal
stem, which often refers to the passive voice, as indeed it does here. This
is reflected in the English translations - to be moved or not to be moved
suggests the action of an external or causative agent to bring about change
in position, but does not exclude the possibility of motion apart from an
external agent. Bouw frequently chides those who disagree with him on
Biblical passages that speak of the rising of the Sun by claiming that they
accuse God of being a poor communicator. Therefore, we may apply Bouw's
standard to his own work: the Lord could have rendered these passages to
read, '... the world does not move', if that is what He intended. As is,
these passages are hardly geocentric.

It is important to note that the same Hebrew word for 'moved' (môwt) in the
same niphal stem is used in Psalm 16:8, 'I shall not be moved'. Presumably
even Bouw wouldn't accuse God of poor communication if he didn't believe
that the Bible taught that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot! Rather, the
passage teaches that he would not stray from the path that God had set for
him. If that's so, then it's impossible to deny that 'the world ... cannot
be moved' could mean that Earth will not stray from the precise orbital and
rotational pattern God has set for it.

In both 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10, the word 'shall' appears, which
Bouw obviously and correctly takes as an imperative. However, the next
passage that he discusses, Psalm 104:5,(19) reads, ' ... laid the
foundations of the Earth that it should not be removed forever'.

Bouw notes that the word 'should' is a conditional that does not necessarily
reflect things as they are. While it is true that many people today use the
word 'should' in this sense, this is not the correct and original meaning of
the word (the usual intended meaning when many people say 'should' is better
conveyed by the word 'ought'). The word 'should' actually is the past tense
of 'shall', and as such has the same imperative meaning that that word has.
Here Bouw makes much ado about the dictionary meaning of the word 'remove',
but he is very selective in the use of the dictionary, as he apparently did
not bother to consult the meaning of the word 'should'. As an aside, the
words for 'shall' and 'should' are understood but absent in Hebrew and were
inserted into English to make the passages intelligible. As such, the choice
of when, where, and which word to insert is a matter of preference or sense
of the translator, and ought never be used as the basis for any doctrine.

Sunrise and sunset

Much of the case for geocentrism relies upon many Biblical passages that
refer to sunrise and sunset. Geocentrists argue that since the Bible is
inspired of God, then when He chose to use such terminology, the Lord must
mean that the Sun moves. By this reasoning , virtually all astronomers and
astronomical books and magazines are geocentric, because 'sunrise' and
'sunset' is exactly the language that such sources use. Anyone who has spent
much time watching the sky can testify that each day the Sun, moon, planets,
and most stars do rise, move across the sky, and then set. Such observation
and description do not at all address what actually causes this motion.
However, the geocentrists will have none of it, insisting that language and
usage must conform to their standards. For instance, Bouw has suggested the
words, 'tosun' and 'fromsun'(20) for sunrise and sunset to better
acknowledge what heliocentrists mean. It is extremely unlikely that these
words will catch on, because the terms sunrise and sunset work so well.

The attempted coining of these new words demonstrates the desperate attempt
to argue the point here. Quoting Bouw:

'Either God meant what he wrote or he did not mean what he wrote and would,
presumably, revise his original writing as well as write differently if he
were to write today.'(21)

No, He would not, because there is probably not a language now or ever
inexistence that has simple expressions that concisely and accurately
describes the heliocentric rising and setting of the Sun. Why do we need
such expressions when the ones that we now possess work so well and are
understood in all cultures?

Elsewhere Bouw suggests that those who disagree with him are virtually
accusing God of being a bad communicator or grammarian. Of course, we do
not. However, Bouw has painted himself into a corner: if Bouw is wrong,
---end page 112-----
then he is the one who has made this accusation against our Creator. What
he misses is that cosmology is not being addressed at all in these passages.
This extremely literal approach to the Bible is reverently intended, but it
badly misses the mark. At some points it almost reads as a parody (and sadly
it's not much different from those of bibliosceptics).

Firmament

Bouw makes a similarly poor case for his Biblical model for space. Light is
a wave. All waves require a medium. For instance, sound waves travel in air
and water waves obviously use water as a medium. What is the medium in which
light travels, given that light apparently can travel through empty space?
In classical physics the medium for light is called the 'ether' or 'aether'.
However, modern physics takes a different approach, which will not be
discussed here.(22) Bouw maintains that modern physics is in error, and that
the classical aether indeed does exist. He further insists that the
firmament first mentioned in Genesis 1:6 is to be equated with the aether,
going so far as to claim that the firmament is God's chosen name for the
aether.

Physics aside for the moment, is this good exegesis? Hardly. First, there is
a problem with the use of the word 'firmament' in the King James Version.
The Hebrew word is raqiya', which is a noun that comes from a verb that
means to beat out as into a thin sheet. Gold is a good example of this
process. Gold is so malleable that hammers and other tools can be used to
flatten and stretch the metal into very thin sheets that can be applied to
objects to gild them. The question is, what property or properties are
intended by the word raqiya'? If one wants to get across the hardness of the
object, usually a metal, being beaten out, then 'firmament' may not be a bad
translation.

However, what if the intended property is the stretched out nature of the
raqiya' rather than hardness? This is consistent with the terminology of
Psalm 104:2, which speaks of the stretching out of the heavens, though
admittedly the Hebrew word used there for heaven is shamayim. However,
Genesis 1:8 explicitly states that God called the firmament (raqiya')
heaven(s) (shamayim). Therefore, there is contextual Biblical evidence for
equating these two Hebrew words, at least in some cases. If the stretched
out nature of the raqiya' is what is intended, then 'firmament' is a bad
translation, while 'expanse' used in many modern translations is very good.

How did the KJV come to use 'firmament'? The Septuagint rendered raqiya' as
stereoma, which gives the meaning of something very hard. This was an
obvious incorporation of Greek cosmology current at the time of the
Septuagint translation. That cosmology had the Earth surrounded by a hard
crystalline sphere upon which were suspended the stars. In the Vulgate,
Jerome followed the lead of the Septuagint and used the Latin equivalent
firmamentum. The KJV translators merely anglicized this.

There are at least two ironies in Bouw's insistence of the correctness of
the word firmament. The first is that Bouw severely criticizes both the
Vulgate and the Septuagint as being terrible translations, going as far as
to express doubt that the Septuagint even existed before the New
Testament.(23) The second is that Bouw completely trashes ancient Greek
philosophy, but blindly accepts the heavy influence of the same ancient
Greek science on this point.

A second problem with Bouw's equating the raqiya' (firmament) with the
aether is how the firmament is further discussed in the creation account.
The first appearance of the word is on Day Two of Creation Week when the
waters were separated above and below and with the firmament between. On Day
Four, the Sun, moon, and stars were set in the firmament. On Day Five, birds
were made to fly in the firmament. It is quite a stretch to conclude that
the firmament must be all of space or even any stuff that may fill space.
The most obvious conclusion is that the raqiya' is the Earth's atmosphere or
the sky. If this is true, then much of Bouw's case is destroyed.

The various issues briefly discussed here are just a few of the many
examples of how poorly Bouw handles Biblical matters. But these key issues
are enough for readers to question Bouw's credibility on Biblical matters
and his insistence that the Bible is geocentric.

Historical issues

Bouw claims that heliocentrism has led to all sorts of moral degeneracy.(24)
The example he discusses is astrology. This is a bizarre assertion, given
that astrology flourished for millennia before the heliocentric theory
became popular, and seems to have decreased where heliocentrism has
flourished. Ironically, the dominant geocentric theory of
---end page 113-----
history, the Ptolemaic system, was devised primarily as a tool to calculate
planetary positions in the past and future as an aid for astrological
prognostications.

Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630)

Kepler comes under great criticism by the geocentrists because of the great
role that he played in the acceptance of the heliocentric model. Some of
this criticism is quite strained. He is blasted for having dabbled in
astrology, although it was common and, as shown, hardly confined to
heliocentrists. He is also blasted for his supposed anti-Biblical
beliefs(25) as well as the insinuation that Kepler was dishonest in his
co-authoring the work of Tycho Brahe (1546 - 1601) after he had died.(26)
This latter charge includes a hint of a plagiarism charge, even though a few
pages earlier Bouw stated at the time this was an acceptable practice.(27)
Bouw concludes that Kepler was not a Christian,(26) which places him at odds
with many other creationists who claim that Kepler was indeed a Christian.
For instance, Morris included a section on Kepler.(28) In addition, Morris
listed Copernicus (1473 - 1543), Galileo, and Tycho at the conclusion of the
chapter that briefly discussed Kepler as examples of people, though while
they may have not have been true believers in Christ, at the very least were
theistic creationists. Bouw rejects all, save Tycho, as Christians.(26)

Tycho Brahe

Bouw goes to great lengths to salvage the reputation of Tycho, whose
cosmology he and modern geocentrists advocate. That is, other planets
orbited the Sun, and the Sun and its retinue orbited the Earth. While
admitting Tycho's well--known faults and failing during most of his life, he
claims without documentation that in the last year of his life some who
worked with Tycho noticed a change in his life.(29) Bouw concludes that this
was salvation, though he has absolutely no evidence for this.

Bouw blasts the heliocentrists of four centuries ago as being ungodly and
insinuates that it was their ungodliness that motivated their acceptance of
the heliocentric theory. However, by Bouw's own account of the events of
Tycho's life, his rejection of heliocentricity and the suggestion of his
alternate Tychonian cosmology far predated Tycho's alleged conversion. Thus
the model favoured by modern geocentrists was hatched in the mind of an
unregenerate man, even granting Bouw's own revisionist historiography.
Therefore, modern geocentrists teach that the heliocentric model is wrong
because ungodly men originated it, but fail to apply the same standard to
their favoured geocentric theory.

Nicolaus Copernicus

While Bouw finds little or no fault in Tycho, he relentlessly finds fault
with every heliocentrist. For instance, Bouw takes a swipe at Copernicus'
mathematical skills by noting that the best mathematicians of his day were
consumed with the laborious task of calculating horoscopes. According to
Bouw, Copernicus had the time to spend investigating alternate cosmological
models, because Copernicus was not gifted enough to be in demand for
astrological calculations.(30) With Bouw, Copernicus cannot win - if he head
done horoscopes, Bouw would have castigated him as a mystic dabbling in the
occult; but since he did not do horoscopes, it was because Copernicus was a
poor mathematician.

A few decades after the death of Copernicus, the situation had not changed
much, so it is not surprising that such a good mathematician as Kepler spent
a good deal of time calculating horoscopes. Apparently it has never occurred
to Bouw that the reason that Tycho was available to pursue astronomical
measurements rather than produce horoscopes may have been the same reason
that he claimed that Copernicus had time to pursue other matters. Indeed,
late in life, Tycho realized that he was not the best mathematician around
and needed help in making sense of his observations. This caused Tycho to
seek the best mathematician available, who happened to be Kepler. The
simultaneous sycophantic treatment of Tycho and harsh criticism of
heliocentrists exposes some the logical flaws in Bouw's case.

Another criticism of Copernicus is that he opined that the 10,000 epicycles
required to make the motions of the Sun, moon, planets, and stars was an
'unseemly' large number and 'unworthy' of the Creator.(31) Bouw takes
Copernicus to task for failing to notice that the obvious flaw in his
reasoning was the assumption that heavenly bodies must move in circles.
However, the model under scrutiny at the time was the Ptolemaic model, thus
this error came from the philosophical musings of the ancient Greeks, not
from Copernicus. Copernicus merely discussed the only geocentric model of
his day (the Tychonian model
---end page 114-----
was still more than a half-century away). How Bouw can level this charge at
a heliocentrist rather than at geocentrists where it properly belongs
boggles the mind. It is as if the modern geocentrists wilfully ignore the
Ptolemaic model. Indeed, that model is barely mentioned in Bouw's book.

Heliocentrist vs geocentrist comparisons

Another example of Bouw's poor logic is the observation that '... the first
heliocentrists were pagans who did not hold the Bible in high esteem'.(32)
While this statement is technically true, it plants a very false and
misleading impression. Such a statement plants in the minds of many people
that the near converse is true, that is, that the first geocentrists were
not pagans and held the Bible in high esteem. Of course this is nonsense.
Virtually all that we know of ancient science and cosmology comes from the
Greeks. Most of them were geocentrists. All of them were pagans. Claudius
Ptolemy (fl. AD 127 - 145), who is credited with the longest-lived
geocentric model of all time, was a pagan. By Bouw's own 'reasoning'
(leaving aside the blatant genetic fallacy), geocentrism should be rejected,
because it has a long pagan history.

Of course, Bouw would respond that the Bible is explicitly geocentric.(33)
Since much of the Old Testament predates many of the secular sources, Bouw
would claim that the earliest geocentrists were not pagan. But this begs the
question - most of the quotes used to support the geocentricity of the Bible
are from fellow geocentrists or from bibliosceptics. Nearly all
Bible-believing heliocentrists think that the Bible is neither geocentric
nor heliocentric, but Bouw holds their opinions on the matter in low regard.

As another example of Bouw's poor logic, consider that at several locations
Bouw states that the heliocentric theory came to be accepted in the
seventeenth century without any proof. Here Bouw weeks to be arguing against
the legitimacy of heliocentricity, because it was prematurely accepted
before there was any evidence. Yet, he also admits that by 1650 there was no
solid proof for or against either the heliocentric or Tychonian models.(26)
Therefore, by Bouw's standard we should reject both models in favour of the
Ptolemaic model or some other alternative, but of course Bouw insists that
only the heliocentric model be subjected to such scrutiny. This sort of
double standard is common in geocentric arguments.

Bouw blasts the perceived arrogance of Kepler,(34) all the while overlooking
or forgiving similar misgivings in Tycho. Ad hominem attacks are common in
modern geocentric literature as well. As an example, Bouw spends some time
trashing Kepler for alleged witchcraft and dabbling in the occult.(34) Even
Kepler's mother and other family members are brought into the discussion.
Bouw mentions that Marshall Hall, a fellow geocentrist, has speculated that
Kepler my have poisoned Tycho.(35) It's a shame that two of the most
prominent geocentriscists feel that they need to resort to baseless
inflammatory accusations.

Galileo Galilei

Galileo also comes under fire for his role in establishing the heliocentric
model. While he did not invent the telescope, Galileo was apparently the
first to put the telescope to use observing celestial objects. He found a
number of things in the sky that ran counter to what the church, parroting
ancient Greek ideas, said. Examples are the craters on the moon and spots on
the Sun. Greek philosophers had reasoned that the moon and Sun, as celestial
objects, had to be perfect. As such, they ought to have been free from
blemishes such as craters and spots.

Galileo also claimed evidence for the heliocentric theory in his
discoveries. One of them, the rotation of the Sun, was bogus as proof of
heliocentrism, as Bouw states,(36) but it was a persuasive argument in the
pre-Newtonian world (cf. Isaac Newton 1643 - 1727 Gregorian Calendar).
However, Bouw's poisoned attitude toward all heliocentrists has prevented
him from correctly discussing two other evidences for heliocentrism. One was
the discovery of four satellites, or moons, that orbit Jupiter. Galileo used
this to counter the objection to heliocentrism that the moon would be left
behind if the Earth moved. It is obvious that Jupiter moves, and it is also
obvious that its motion does not leave behind the satellites of Jupiter.
Bouw is correct that this is an argument by analogy, but one cannot so
easily dismiss this argument. The critics of heliocentrism must explain how
the motions of Jupiter and its moons and the Earth and its moon are
different.

However, Bouw misses on of the most important points of Galileo on this. The
geocentric model of Galileo's day was that all celestial objects orbited the
Earth. Here Galileo had found four celestial objects that did not directly
orbit the Earth, but instead orbited something else. The geocentrists were
not willing to give up an inch on this, because their already overly
complicated Ptolemaic model had already endured a tremendous amount of
tinkering.
---end page 115-----
They feared that surrendering this would lead to the discovery of other
objects that did not orbit the Sun, which would further chip away the
geocentric model.

Bouw completely misconstrues Galileo's third evidence for heliocentrism, the
phases of Venus.(37) The full set of Venereal phases can happen only if
Venus passes both in front of and behind the Sun as seen from Earth (Figure
1). The Ptolemaic model placed Venus orbiting the Earth closer than the Sun,
but always near to the Sun as constrained by observations, but that would
preclude gibbous phases from being seen since that would require the Earth
to be roughly between the Sun and Venus. On the other hand, moving Venus'
orbit beyond that of the Sun would allow gibbous phases, but would not
permit crescent phases to be seen.

Tychonian vs Ptolemaic geocentric models

The Appendix contains a fuller comparison of these two geocentric models and
the Copernican one, but it's important to point out a number of points in
the main text.

Bouw suggests that the phases of Venus are a problem for the Ptolemaic model
only if one insists upon using circles, and that Galileo's argument fall
flat if ellipses are allowed. The only thing that falls flat here is Bouw's
argument. The very reason that the Ptolemaic model existed was to preserve
'perfect[' uniform circular motion, with the massive tinkering involving
epicycles (circles on circles) and even more complex extensions. The
introduction of ellipses would have destroyed the Ptolemaic model every bit
as much as what Galileo was suggesting. Bouw's defence of the status quo
Ptolemaic model her and elsewhere is puzzling. Throughout much of his book
it is easy to draw the wrong conclusion that this is the model that Bouw is
defending. Bouw does correctly point out that Galileo's argument about the
phases of Venus does not distinguish between the heliocentric and Tychonian
models, but this needlessly clouds the issue since the Tychonian model was
not even being discussed at the time.

The truth of the matter is that the Tychonian model was a far less
significant contender than either the heliocentric or the Ptolemaic theories
than modern geocentrists would have us believe. The reason is that the
Tychonian model was a sort of halfway house for geocentrists. Geocentrists
could hold on to a stationary Earth while discarding virtually everything
else that was in the Ptolemaic model. Like so many other compromises, the
Tychonian model failed to satisfy many on either side. Nevertheless, Bouw
does a clever slight of hand trick. He insists that heliocentrists of four
centuries ago did not offer real proofs and further claims that they
improperly attempted to shift the burden of proof to the status quo. That
is, in the absence of a real challenge to the status quo the status quo
should prevail. Bouw claims that that status quo was geocentrism, so his
favoured geocentric model, the Tychonian system, should prevail. This is
preposterous. The Tychonian system was not the status quo then; the
Ptolemaic model was. Again and again Bouw takes this sort of sloppy approach
- he argues for the Ptolemaic model and then slips his model in as a
substitute. This is most blatant when in a very late chapter in his book
Bouw explicitly discusses geocentric models. There is no heading for the
Tychonian model, but there is one for the Ptolemaic model.(38) The problem
is, the discussion and diagram clearly represent the Tychonian model.