Science vs. Scripture (or, history repeats itself)

10 thoughts on “Science vs. Scripture (or, history repeats itself)”

  1. Three comments:

    1) Please define your terms of “geocentrisim” and “heliocentrism.”
    2) “Evolution” is not a science. It is a religious dogma. Please define “science.”
    3) It seems you are avoiding the questions from the previous post.


    1. Andrew –
      1) These terms are well established and don’t need to be further defined by me. One is an established, measurable, demonstrable description of our solar system. The other is a discredited theory that most reasonable people abandoned 500 years ago.
      2) Evolution is a scientific theory that has to be taken seriously, whether you agree with everything it says or not. No, it is not a religious dogma. Calling it such only distracts from the real issues and ignores the fact that there are many evolutionary biologists (not to mention scientists in other fields) who are also devout Christians.
      3) You’re entitled to think that if you want.

      Eric –
      Thanks for the (somewhat random) comment.


      1. Ben, you need to define those terms, because otherwise it seems plainly obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. Your unwillingness to answer questions or address factual issues is another example that evolution is defended as a religious dogma.

        1. Please define “geocentrism”
        2. Please define “heliocentrism”
        3. Please define “science”

        You shouldn’t be using terms that you are unwilling to define, and it did not escape me that you managed to reply without saying anything of substance.


      2. Please allow me to help out with an excerpt from an astronomy textbook:

        You might want to read this more than once:

        “We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.

        Sir Fred Hoyle, 1975. Astronomy and Cosmology: A Modern Course, (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416.

        Geocentric and heliocentric are not “theories” – they are perspectives. They are not true or false in themselves, and thus neither one can be “disproved.” Only theories or factual statements can be proved or disproved. The decision of what we regard as a “center” is completely arbitrary and chosen for mathematical convenience on a case by case basis. Try arguing with your police officer that he is not measuring your speed correctly because of he was not using a “heliocentric” model.

        If you haven’t recognized that the only real difference in these views is which point in space is defined as “zero” them maybe you should consider why you are fighting tooth and nail for “heliocentrism” and trash-talking the book of Joshua.

        If you are going to fight on something, you should at least pick something that has the potential to be proven one way or another. Otherwise, you are worse off than the people that you were criticizing in your article. It seems rather hypocritical.

        However, “evolution theory” is not just a matter of perspective. It has very real problems with existing evidence, but it is propagated with the irrational religious fanaticism that you were just calling out. Instead of pointing fingers, I think it might be appropriate if you were willing to consider facts and take a look in the mirror, i.e. to be willing to “take the beam out of your own eye.”


  2. We are OUTRAGED by one priest’s dress code that prevents us from celebrating Mass. Please visit and lend your support at my blog. Thank you.

    If I had in any way offended you with this comment, please delete with my sincere apologies. Thank you, Eric


  3. So called proofs of heliocentrism addressed and refuted at Heliocentrism is being tossed into the dust bin of science along with the frog to prince evolution fairy tale. That’s not to say the scientists and many others who have a big stake in maintaining the status quo won’t go gently into the night.

    Those not closed minded against Sacred Scripture should visit


      1. Ben, I think that you and James are talking at cross-purposes with different definitions. I doubt that he is maintaining that the motion of Mars or Jupiter is most easily described with a pure elliptical orbit around the center of the earth (this is one of the reasons why I suggested that you should define your terms earlier.)

        I took a look at his recommended sites. Scripture-Catholic didn’t seem very helpful, but there was an interesting article at the “Galileo Was Wrong” site that I would recommend.

        Click to access Darwin%20Newton%20Einstein%20At%20the%20End%20of%20Their%20Rope.pdf

        I think that it would be good for you to read that article, in the interests of fairness, if nothing else. You might especially want to note that such celebrated names such as Stephen Hawking and Edwin Hubble were not able to confidentially dismiss what you were claiming was “abandoned by most reasonable people 500 years ago.”

        Taking that moment to read those twelve pages would be a lot more fair and constructive than offering each other flavored drinks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s