Is creationism the biological equivalent of the geocentric model of the universe?

Question

Before it could be proved false, Christians were absolutely positive that the sun, planets, etc. revolved around the earth. (Talk about cosmic egotism.) They knew no better and despite some more than a little resistance, have now accepted the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe.

Still, in spite of evidence to the contrary, creationists insist that god created man rather believing the evidence of the natural explanation offered by evolution/natural selection. Will they be looked by our descendents at with the same sort of disdain we look upon those who believed in geocentric model? If so, don't you sort of feel sorry for them?

a.) It is true that Copernicus was a Christian, but not in an official capacity. Most likely he was Christian not by any positive action on his part, but rather by default. After all, what were his options? If he were anything but a Christian it's quite likely that he would have been killed as a heretic.

The point is moot anyway because his evidence was not just casually disregarded by the Church, it was repressed.

b.) It's true that the Church was not solely responsible for the geocentric model. It went with the inertia of the times. Neither did it care to re-examine its position as a supporter of the geocentric model. It fought it tooth and nail for some time. When did it finally admit its mistake?

Answer 1

Yes, there is not a doubt in my mind that their great great grand children will be looking back on them, laughing at their twisted logic and backwards lifestlyle.

Answer 2

The question asked has some problems with it.
1. Not all Christians believed in the geocentric model. The model itself was inherited by the medieval world via the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato. Christian thinkers in the early church borrowed heavily from the Greek philosophers, sometimes at the expense of Scripture.
2. The man who changed the world from geocentric to heliocentric was Copernicus. He theorized that the sun was near the center of the universe and that the Earth, moon, stars, and the other five known planets revolved around the Sun. Interestingly enough though, Copernicus was a Christian.
3. Copernicus was not the first to propose a moving Earth. Other Christian thinkers had done so (Nicole Oresme of France and Nicolaus Cusanus of Germany had proposed it too).

To address the second paragraph of the question:

1. "Still, in spite of evidence to the contrary" - what evidence to the contrary? The Cambrian explosion is a piece of evidence both sides have looked at. The evolutionists using it as the base for their naturalistic philosophy and the creationists seeing it as evidence of sudden creation. The issue is not evidence. The issue is interpretation.
2. Creationists insistence that God created man is not the issue. There are evolutionists who believe in God and that God caused evolution (Kenneth Miller for example). Creationists simply believe that the creation of man by God was direct without the intervention of natural causes, i.e. speciation or natural selection.

I do not think that creationism will be seen as geocentrism is today. Rather, I think that in the end the Scriptures will prevail and all the earth declare that Christ is Lord!

BW

Answer 3

*ahem* Last I checked, non-Christians were just as supportive of the geocentric model as the Roman Catholic Church was. They certainly didn't come up with any better ideas. Even before Christianity itself was founded, everyone thought the earth was flat.
Oh, and the guy who came up with the heliocentric theory, Nicholas Copernicus, was a Christian.

Anyway, I could go into a lengthy dissertation of creation vs. evolution.... but it's lunchtime and I'm very hungry, so I'm gonna give you a website and tell you to research the creation vs. evolution issue yourself. Don't be afraid to look SERIOUSLY at BOTH sides of the issue. If creation vs. evolution is really such a no-brainer as you claim, then you have nothing to worry about.

Answer 4

Actually, creationism is based heavily in scientific method, Peter.
It is just as solid as evolutionism.
I won't argue with anyone for what they believe, but I can argue creationism from an educated point of view.
Environmental theory destroys the method of timing bones and fossils to millions of years. The theory suggests that the environment at the Earth's beginning was totally different than what it is now. This is the base belief of creationists.
Popularity of a particular science makes those who base their books and science in evolution very concerned about any theory that opposes their viewpoint or work. That is why creationism is the target of so much hatred because, if it takes root than many, many, many books will be put down and science will be redirected in a different path. There is a lot of money to be lost in grants.
But, science should be accepting of all theories that can be reasonably argued. You should read more and be observant of the actual theories put forward rather than closing your mind to possibilities. None of us know 100% about from where we come. But all science is on the quest to discover it.

Answer 5

somewhat, simply by around nature of the creation question, supernatural is the only clarification my strategies can draw close. it truly is, of direction, coming from a extreme college graduate. LOL Supernatural: –adjective a million.of, bearing on, or being above or previous what's organic; unexplainable by skill of organic regulation or phenomena; unusual. 2.of, bearing on, function of, or attributed to God or a deity. 3.of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural velocity. 4.of, bearing on, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or different unearthly beings; eerie; occult. of direction there are different definitions that are no longer adjectives, yet a million covers my reason in the back of believing creation to be supernatural. I save my eyes open for any new theories related to quantum physics. i've got faith that lots of the solutions to our questions might lie there.

Answer 6

Yep.

Check this out and compare it to the Dr. Dino web site: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/05/19/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/
It will make you laugh.

Answer 7

I'd say it's more the astrology of the psychological world.