In the discussion of the "geocentrism fiasco", it has often been pointed out that the Scripture does not teach geocentrism, and this is correct. But the point of the whole story is that the Christian community of the time *believed* that the Scripture taught geocentrism, and they were wrong. This is the lesson we must learn for the current debate.
Before Galileo began promoting the heliocentric view of the universe, the Church believed that the sun and stars, the entire universe in fact, revolved around the earth. This was based, they believed, on a simple, plain reading of Scripture. The entire scheme of Genesis 1 made it clear: the earth was there at the very beginning and the rest of the universe was built around it. The sun and moon were "greater and lesser lights" *for the earth*, the stars part of the firmament over the earth. The earth played the central role, it was the location of Gods special creation, Man, and everything they read conformed to the idea of the earth being at the physical and literal center of things, with all else revolving around it. And there were other Scripture throughout the Bible which backed this up.
Also, their own eyes could see the geocentric nature of their world. They were in one spot and everything revolved around them. Why go out and seek for these convoluted theories to describe something when both the Scripture and their own eyes made it clear that geocentrism was true? It must be admitted that *without* our current knowledge of the universe, if we placed ourselves back in their position, we would read the Scripture the same way.
When Galileo began presenting the heliocentric theory, the Christian community, both Catholic and Protestant, said it was contrary to Scripture and, therefore, must be false. In fact, they went so far as to say that if Geocentrism were true, the Scripture was not true. They were entirely incompatible. And, if those Scriptures which they believed established Geocentrism were proven "false" then what about the rest of Scripture? Where would it end? And theologically: Galileo was pointing out that the sun was one star among countless others, and the earth was one planet among countless others. The Earth was just one of those specks in the universe. This was all too much, it just could not be true. If the Earth was not the physical center and focal point of the universe, then what does that say about Gods special creation of Man? Where does that leave us? No, you could not be a Heliocentrist AND a truly be a Christian. Galileo was a heretic.
The Christian community also called on the support of scientists who, up to the time Galileo presented heliocentrism, also believed in geocentrism. They were all Christian, of course, and without any real evidence to the contrary, also accepted the Biblical and observable evidence for geocentrism. Galileos theory was simply that, an unproven theory.
Eventually, the proof began rolling in and more and more scientists began accepting that it must be true. But many in the Church held out, saying that those who were accepting heliocentrism were simply selling out, accepting the scientific conclusions of men over Gods Word. More and more Christians began accepting this scientific conclusion, and found that, after all, it did NOT destroy Christianity, it did NOT mean that the Bible could not be trusted, it need not affect anyones faith in the least.
They realized that it had been the Churchs traditional interpretation of Scripture which had been incorrect all along, and that the scientific theory which had SEEMED to contradict Gods Word really did not. Almost the entire Christian community did as we do today in regards to geocentrism: we allow the evidence of Gods Creation to inform our interpretation of Gods written Word.
But there were still hold-outs even deep into this century. I remember reading tracts written in the mid-sixties which said that the world had been duped by an unproven scientific theory which was still contrary to a plain reading of Scripture. This seemed to pretty much peter out, though, when we got to the moon.
I think that in one hundred years, if Jesus tarries, we will look back on the current debate regarding evolution and an old earth just as we now look back on the geocentrism fiasco. The Church will realize that it was its own traditional reading of Scripture which was incorrect, and allow the evidence of Gods Creation inform its interpretation of Scripture. Most already do. This does not mean, of course, that the concepts of evolution itself will not continue to be fine-tuned and we will know a lot more about how it all works together. Just as Galileo had some things wrong with his concept of heliocentrism, there are still some areas to clarify and fight over regarding the particulars of exactly how God used evolutionary processes in His Creative process.
Which was more potentially damaging to Christianity:
1. Galileo's teaching of heliocentrism
2. The Church's teaching that heliocentrism directly contradicted Scripture
Before Galileo began promoting the heliocentric view of the universe, the Church believed that the sun and stars, the entire universe in fact, revolved around the earth. This was based, they believed, on a simple, plain reading of Scripture. The entire scheme of Genesis 1 made it clear: the earth was there at the very beginning and the rest of the universe was built around it. The sun and moon were "greater and lesser lights" *for the earth*, the stars part of the firmament over the earth. The earth played the central role, it was the location of Gods special creation, Man, and everything they read conformed to the idea of the earth being at the physical and literal center of things, with all else revolving around it. And there were other Scripture throughout the Bible which backed this up.
Also, their own eyes could see the geocentric nature of their world. They were in one spot and everything revolved around them. Why go out and seek for these convoluted theories to describe something when both the Scripture and their own eyes made it clear that geocentrism was true? It must be admitted that *without* our current knowledge of the universe, if we placed ourselves back in their position, we would read the Scripture the same way.
When Galileo began presenting the heliocentric theory, the Christian community, both Catholic and Protestant, said it was contrary to Scripture and, therefore, must be false. In fact, they went so far as to say that if Geocentrism were true, the Scripture was not true. They were entirely incompatible. And, if those Scriptures which they believed established Geocentrism were proven "false" then what about the rest of Scripture? Where would it end? And theologically: Galileo was pointing out that the sun was one star among countless others, and the earth was one planet among countless others. The Earth was just one of those specks in the universe. This was all too much, it just could not be true. If the Earth was not the physical center and focal point of the universe, then what does that say about Gods special creation of Man? Where does that leave us? No, you could not be a Heliocentrist AND a truly be a Christian. Galileo was a heretic.
The Christian community also called on the support of scientists who, up to the time Galileo presented heliocentrism, also believed in geocentrism. They were all Christian, of course, and without any real evidence to the contrary, also accepted the Biblical and observable evidence for geocentrism. Galileos theory was simply that, an unproven theory.
Eventually, the proof began rolling in and more and more scientists began accepting that it must be true. But many in the Church held out, saying that those who were accepting heliocentrism were simply selling out, accepting the scientific conclusions of men over Gods Word. More and more Christians began accepting this scientific conclusion, and found that, after all, it did NOT destroy Christianity, it did NOT mean that the Bible could not be trusted, it need not affect anyones faith in the least.
They realized that it had been the Churchs traditional interpretation of Scripture which had been incorrect all along, and that the scientific theory which had SEEMED to contradict Gods Word really did not. Almost the entire Christian community did as we do today in regards to geocentrism: we allow the evidence of Gods Creation to inform our interpretation of Gods written Word.
But there were still hold-outs even deep into this century. I remember reading tracts written in the mid-sixties which said that the world had been duped by an unproven scientific theory which was still contrary to a plain reading of Scripture. This seemed to pretty much peter out, though, when we got to the moon.
I think that in one hundred years, if Jesus tarries, we will look back on the current debate regarding evolution and an old earth just as we now look back on the geocentrism fiasco. The Church will realize that it was its own traditional reading of Scripture which was incorrect, and allow the evidence of Gods Creation inform its interpretation of Scripture. Most already do. This does not mean, of course, that the concepts of evolution itself will not continue to be fine-tuned and we will know a lot more about how it all works together. Just as Galileo had some things wrong with his concept of heliocentrism, there are still some areas to clarify and fight over regarding the particulars of exactly how God used evolutionary processes in His Creative process.
Which was more potentially damaging to Christianity:
1. Galileo's teaching of heliocentrism
2. The Church's teaching that heliocentrism directly contradicted Scripture
