One may also read about "the gospel in a tulip" and other
such things related to variety of hyper-Calvinism known
The reconstructionists maintain a site called "Contra Mundum,"
which (at present) duplicates what is available in a printed
journal of the same title. This site also has some stuff
on geocentrism. I don't have a record of the full address,
but a search for James B. Jordan or Gerardus D Buow should
pull it up.
Joel Duff's comments about the domino effect (debunking
heliocentrism yields the falsity of and old earth and
evolution) are quite on target. How ironic -- my own
approach to science/scripture issues as an historian of
science is to START with Galileo and use the principles
we get from that affair (many stated by Galileo in his
letter to Christina d'Medici) to get a handle on how
Christians ought to approach the modern issues. All of
which assumes that the earth does indeed move, though
Galileo lacked proof.
"Proof" is of course the bottom line issue here: what
constitutes convincing evidence, let alone "proof,"
for a proposition about nature? I am not aware of
any "proof" in the absolute sense for any high-level
theory about any aspect of nature, not quantum theory,
not any particular type of gravitation theory, not
evolution, not the big bang, not even atomic theory
(though we seem to get closer to "proving" atoms
intuitively by "seeing" them with instruments). The
motion of the earth is similar: one could in principle
find some other way to explain the appearances, if
one is prepared to chuck Newtonian physics into
the trash can. Of course, not all explanations are
equally elegant, or simple, or etc., but who says
science needs to be elegant or simple? Who says it
can't be serious nonsense like geocentrism is today?
The standard of "proof" required for a proposition about
nature, according to geocentrists and other radical
reconstructionists (such as John Robbins or R G
Elmendorf) is this:
(a) If the Bible says it (in a "literal" interpretation
as read by a modern person who lacks sensitivity to the
historical context that would tell us the real "literal"
interpretation), it's true
(b) If we can derive it logically from indubious axioms,
it's true. (Incidentally, the divine "LOGOS" in John 1
is often understood as a reference to logic; hence, the
simpler types of mathematics and the ordinary rules of
reasoning are "biblical.")
(c) See (a) and (b).
They ain't no room here for empiricism. 'Nuff said?
Professor of the History of Science
Grantham, PA 17027
717-766-2511, ext 6840