- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I just finished reading Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood. It is a fascinating read for all those who want to see a cute little example of how a pseudoscientific idea can grip public imagination.
No, Columbus never disproved the flat Earth, because everybody believed in a spherical Earth by then. However, the zetetic movement began in the late 1800s in England to prove precisely the point (that the Earth was flat), and it looked eerily like modern creationism:
The last sentence is especially poignant. "Equal time" and "teach the controversy", anybody?
Later on in this summary chapter she proceeds to make a detailed parallel between creationism and flat-earth belief:
And for good measure here are nice quotes from According to Plan by Graeme Goldsworthy, a beginner's introduction to Biblical theology, which I finished reading on the flight from Adelaide to Canberra:
No, Columbus never disproved the flat Earth, because everybody believed in a spherical Earth by then. However, the zetetic movement began in the late 1800s in England to prove precisely the point (that the Earth was flat), and it looked eerily like modern creationism:
... while zetetics emphasized Biblical authority, they also turned to scientific experiments, empirical proof and the mythology of discovery as vital components of their protests. At base level, even zetetic philosophy was promoted as a Baconian fact-finding mission, an objective quest to seek the truth, while rhetoric alluding to common sense, empiricism, reason and logic was as much a feature of zetetic publications as Biblical quotations and statements of faith.
The latter point is critical because, from the campaign's inception, flat-earth advocates sought to assume the authority and apparatus of science, the very thing they purported to loathe, and employ it to their own ends. In many respects it was a powerful and timely move. From the early nineteenth century science displaced religion as the primary source of cultural authority and offered a number of well-attested practices that flat-earth believers proceeded to put to novel use.
Although, in terms of ideological and organizational sophistication, the movement peaked through the era of Parallax and Lady Blount, Shenton and Johnson went on to reflect such developments in science and society as a whole; in the face of space exploration and shifting world-views they emphasized "scientific" and political arguments pertaining to democracy and freedom of thought.
(p. 354; paragraphing added)The latter point is critical because, from the campaign's inception, flat-earth advocates sought to assume the authority and apparatus of science, the very thing they purported to loathe, and employ it to their own ends. In many respects it was a powerful and timely move. From the early nineteenth century science displaced religion as the primary source of cultural authority and offered a number of well-attested practices that flat-earth believers proceeded to put to novel use.
Although, in terms of ideological and organizational sophistication, the movement peaked through the era of Parallax and Lady Blount, Shenton and Johnson went on to reflect such developments in science and society as a whole; in the face of space exploration and shifting world-views they emphasized "scientific" and political arguments pertaining to democracy and freedom of thought.
The last sentence is especially poignant. "Equal time" and "teach the controversy", anybody?
Later on in this summary chapter she proceeds to make a detailed parallel between creationism and flat-earth belief:
Although such creationist organizations [as CRS and ICR] recoil from association with flat-earth believers, some general similarities between the two campaigns cannot be overlooked. As Robert Schadewald contended, they concur on a number of issues, including the authority of the scriptures as a scientific guide to the natural world, the limitations of a theory-led approach, the duplicity of conventional scientists, and the impossibility of reconciling orthodox science with the Bible. And just as they have similar foundations and histories, so, too, have they employed similar strategies to promulgate their world-views.
Both have challenged the authority of conventional scientific knowledge through lectures, debates and investigations, proposing methodologies and arguments alike in structure, content and tone. More specifically, comparable creationist practices include monetary offers for proof of organic evolution, an emphasis on public debates involving persuasive speakers, and a stress on undertaking original research and field studies where possible, including several expeditions to Turkey's Mount Ararat to locate the remains of Noah's Ark.
The arguments employed by creationists and zetetics also display a marked resemblance. At base level, unlike the majority of Christians, creationists assert that if conventional science is true then the Bible must be false;
that one cannot believe the Bible and the theory of evolution / the theory that the earth is a globe;
that the Genesis account of creation / the earth is flat is what the Bible teaches;
that evolution / a globular earth is only a theory;
that evolution / a globular earth is anti-God;
that evolution / a globular earth is a satanic device;
that children are being corrupted by the theory of evolution / the theory of a globular earth,
and that the theory of evolution / the theory of a globular earth is a source of social evil, the cause of imminent chaos and collapse.
Moreover, both creationists and zetetics claim to use the scientific method, which they define narrowly, and stress a paucity of proof for the opposing viewpoint; creationists, for example, highlight an alleged lack of evidence for evolution, especially a lack of transitional forms from invertebrate to vertebrate, from fish to amphibian, reptile to bird or ape to man, the so-called 'missing link', an argument hotly disputed by the evolutionist camp.
(pp. 356-357)Both have challenged the authority of conventional scientific knowledge through lectures, debates and investigations, proposing methodologies and arguments alike in structure, content and tone. More specifically, comparable creationist practices include monetary offers for proof of organic evolution, an emphasis on public debates involving persuasive speakers, and a stress on undertaking original research and field studies where possible, including several expeditions to Turkey's Mount Ararat to locate the remains of Noah's Ark.
The arguments employed by creationists and zetetics also display a marked resemblance. At base level, unlike the majority of Christians, creationists assert that if conventional science is true then the Bible must be false;
that one cannot believe the Bible and the theory of evolution / the theory that the earth is a globe;
that the Genesis account of creation / the earth is flat is what the Bible teaches;
that evolution / a globular earth is only a theory;
that evolution / a globular earth is anti-God;
that evolution / a globular earth is a satanic device;
that children are being corrupted by the theory of evolution / the theory of a globular earth,
and that the theory of evolution / the theory of a globular earth is a source of social evil, the cause of imminent chaos and collapse.
Moreover, both creationists and zetetics claim to use the scientific method, which they define narrowly, and stress a paucity of proof for the opposing viewpoint; creationists, for example, highlight an alleged lack of evidence for evolution, especially a lack of transitional forms from invertebrate to vertebrate, from fish to amphibian, reptile to bird or ape to man, the so-called 'missing link', an argument hotly disputed by the evolutionist camp.
And for good measure here are nice quotes from According to Plan by Graeme Goldsworthy, a beginner's introduction to Biblical theology, which I finished reading on the flight from Adelaide to Canberra:
Christians with the same or very similar convictions about the Bible disagree over what the Bible teaches on the subject of baptism, or predestination, or the second coming of Christ. "Bible-believing" Christians are very serious about this. Truth matters, and you have to defend what you believe to be true. Deciding to be biblical and to believe and act upon what the Bible teaches does not solve all our problems. We are never finished with questions of what the Bible says, how it says it and what it should mean to us. ... The meaning of the Bible is not settled purely on the basis of our understanding of its inspiration and authority.
Two comments [about Genesis 1], however, can be made. First, the passage is unique and thus presents some difficulties in interpretation. The possibilities are far more numerous than a simple choice between strictly literalistic history (usually taken to mean creation in six periods of twenty-four hours), and non-historical myth (usually taken to mean no relation to historical fact). ...
Second, when we face such ambiguities, that is, when more than one possible way exists of understanding something in the Bible, the gospel must instruct us since it is God's final and fullest word to man. It is clear from the gospel that God created all things for a purpose, and that He exercises His rule over creation by His word. It is not at all clear from the gospel that the creation took place in six twenty-four hour periods. Nor is it clear from the gospel that it did not happen in that way. The question is not whether the Bible tells the truth, but how it tells it.
Two comments [about Genesis 1], however, can be made. First, the passage is unique and thus presents some difficulties in interpretation. The possibilities are far more numerous than a simple choice between strictly literalistic history (usually taken to mean creation in six periods of twenty-four hours), and non-historical myth (usually taken to mean no relation to historical fact). ...
Second, when we face such ambiguities, that is, when more than one possible way exists of understanding something in the Bible, the gospel must instruct us since it is God's final and fullest word to man. It is clear from the gospel that God created all things for a purpose, and that He exercises His rule over creation by His word. It is not at all clear from the gospel that the creation took place in six twenty-four hour periods. Nor is it clear from the gospel that it did not happen in that way. The question is not whether the Bible tells the truth, but how it tells it.