http://i.imgur.com/hTHeC.jpg
Someone posted the above image on another website, and I found it quite interesting for several reasons.
I (and others here) have made the argument on occasion that creationism is similar to the belief that the earth was flat in several ways.
For one, most of us, including creationists, dismiss the idea of the earth being flat as ridiculous. There's overwhelming evidence that it's nearly spherical (slightly wider along the equator, but barely noticeable with the naked eye, if at all). The Theory of Evolution, having just about every bit as much evidence, however, is still debated by bible literalists and other creationists. We can see in the image, dated 1893, that people were still taking the idea of a flat earth well into the modern era, and at least up until the dawn of modern technology.
We can also see, that despite the protests of many creationists, the idea of a flat earth was perpetuated by religious ideals. The image even provides a number of bible quotes which are meant to refute the idea of a spherical earth.
Keep in mind, humanity knew the earth was round at least as early as 3rd century BCE. Eratosthenes was able to easily demonstrate the earth was round by showing the shadows of objects were longer, at the same time of day, the further you went north, than the same objects that were further south, and directly under the sun. Yet, a round earth being common knowledge at the turn of the common era still didn't prevent religious influence from spreading the flat-earth idea throughout the world -- sometimes by force during the middle ages.
The same happens now with the idea that the universe was spontaneously spoken into existence by some invisible, omnipotent, entity some 6000 to 10000 years ago (depending on which creationist you ask). Man was to have been created around the same time out of dust. Some believe this is the infallible truth. Some creationists accept that the evidence completely disproves their story, but that Satan himself planted it. Others simply ignore, willfully misunderstand, or flat out deny that the evidence is evidence at all. We can see the same happening here with the (mostly) flat earth idea.
Another similarity is the way that this image represents a point where the flat earth believers conceded to science, or adapted their idea to compensate for admitting some scientific discoveries. As the idea first started out with a completely flat earth. We can see that by the late 19th century, this oscillated torus/bowl-like shape was designed to explain the long periods of day/night at the arctic, and to account for the curvature proved by Eratosthenes (at least for the northern hemisphere.. or inner-hump, I guess?). I suppose nobody noticed how strange it was that it still took far longer to travel from Australia to Greenland, than Australia to South Africa -- I would love to hear what the apologetics were for this.
It's a little unnerving to know that, for roughly 2300 years, there are still people out there that believe in a non-spherical earth, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. With the understanding of evolution only having dawned in the late 1800's, does this mean that the education of our children will have to remain under threat by the imposition of religious myths well after the year 3000? I really hope not.
It's amusing how creationists are both quick to cry persecution when presented with evidence, but at the same time scoff at the absurdity of a bowl/flat/hollow earth.
Someone posted the above image on another website, and I found it quite interesting for several reasons.
I (and others here) have made the argument on occasion that creationism is similar to the belief that the earth was flat in several ways.
For one, most of us, including creationists, dismiss the idea of the earth being flat as ridiculous. There's overwhelming evidence that it's nearly spherical (slightly wider along the equator, but barely noticeable with the naked eye, if at all). The Theory of Evolution, having just about every bit as much evidence, however, is still debated by bible literalists and other creationists. We can see in the image, dated 1893, that people were still taking the idea of a flat earth well into the modern era, and at least up until the dawn of modern technology.
We can also see, that despite the protests of many creationists, the idea of a flat earth was perpetuated by religious ideals. The image even provides a number of bible quotes which are meant to refute the idea of a spherical earth.
Keep in mind, humanity knew the earth was round at least as early as 3rd century BCE. Eratosthenes was able to easily demonstrate the earth was round by showing the shadows of objects were longer, at the same time of day, the further you went north, than the same objects that were further south, and directly under the sun. Yet, a round earth being common knowledge at the turn of the common era still didn't prevent religious influence from spreading the flat-earth idea throughout the world -- sometimes by force during the middle ages.
The same happens now with the idea that the universe was spontaneously spoken into existence by some invisible, omnipotent, entity some 6000 to 10000 years ago (depending on which creationist you ask). Man was to have been created around the same time out of dust. Some believe this is the infallible truth. Some creationists accept that the evidence completely disproves their story, but that Satan himself planted it. Others simply ignore, willfully misunderstand, or flat out deny that the evidence is evidence at all. We can see the same happening here with the (mostly) flat earth idea.
Another similarity is the way that this image represents a point where the flat earth believers conceded to science, or adapted their idea to compensate for admitting some scientific discoveries. As the idea first started out with a completely flat earth. We can see that by the late 19th century, this oscillated torus/bowl-like shape was designed to explain the long periods of day/night at the arctic, and to account for the curvature proved by Eratosthenes (at least for the northern hemisphere.. or inner-hump, I guess?). I suppose nobody noticed how strange it was that it still took far longer to travel from Australia to Greenland, than Australia to South Africa -- I would love to hear what the apologetics were for this.
It's a little unnerving to know that, for roughly 2300 years, there are still people out there that believe in a non-spherical earth, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. With the understanding of evolution only having dawned in the late 1800's, does this mean that the education of our children will have to remain under threat by the imposition of religious myths well after the year 3000? I really hope not.
It's amusing how creationists are both quick to cry persecution when presented with evidence, but at the same time scoff at the absurdity of a bowl/flat/hollow earth.
