1. What is geocentricity?
Geocentricity is a conceptual model of the form of the universe
which makes three basic assertions about the nature of the earth
and its relationship to the rest of the universe. These are:
a. the earth is the center of the universe,
b. the earth is fixed (i.e., immobile) in space, and
c. the earth is unique and special compared to all other heavenly
bodies.
2. What is the History of geocentricity?
The teaching of geocentricity can be traced in western thought
at least back to Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Aristotle argued,
for example, that the reason why all bodies fall to the ground
is because they seek their natural place at the center of the
universe which coincides with the center of the earth.
A geocentric model of the universe seems first to have been
formalized by Ptolemy, the famous Greek astronomer who lived
in Alexandria around A.D. 130. Ptolemy's model envisioned each
planet moving in a small circle, the center of which moved along
a large circular orbit about the earth. This model was generally
accepted until Copernicus published his heliocentric model in
1543.
The heliocentric view pictures the sun as motionless at the
center of the solar system with all the planets, including the
earth, in motion around it. Copernicus' heliocentric model,
because it used circles to describe the orbits of the planets
about the sun instead of ellipses, was as clumsy and inaccurate
as Ptolemy's geocentric model. However, it was conceptually
simpler. It quickly gained acceptance, though not without considerable
controversy. The conflict between these two views came to a
head in the well-known trial of Galileo by the Inquisition in
1632.
Starting from a heliocentric viewpoint, Kepler (1571-1630)
was able to formulate laws of planetary motion which accurately
described the orbits of the planets for the first time. Newton
(1643-1727) was then able to explain why Kepler's laws worked
based upon his famous law of gravity. This tremendous progress
in understanding resulted in almost universal acceptance of
heliocentricity and rejection of geocentricity.
3. What does modern science say about geocentricity?
Many attempts were made to prove that heliocentricity was true
and geocentricity was false, right up until the early 1900's.
All such attempts were unsuccessful. The most well-known of
these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which was designed
to measure the change in the speed of light, due to the assumed
motion of the earth through space, when measured in different
directions on the earth's surface. The failure of this experiment
to detect any significant change played an important role in
the acceptance of Einstein's theory of special relativity.
The theory of special relativity holds as a basic assumption
that the speed of light will always be the same everywhere in
the universe irrespective of the relative motion of the source
of the light and the observer. The ability of special relativity
to successfully explain many non-intuitive physical phenomena
which are manifested by atomic particles when moving at speeds
greater than about one-tenth the speed of light seems to corroborate
this assumption. Thus, the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment
(and all other experiments of similar intent) to detect any
motion of the earth through space is understood by modern science
in terms of relativity rather than geocentricity.
Einstein's theory of general relativity adds further
to the debate. It asserts that it is impossible for a human
observer to determine whether any material body is in a state
of absolute rest (i.e., immobile in space). It claims that only
motion of two material bodies relative to one another can be
physically detected. According to this theory the geocentric
and heliocentric viewpoints are equally valid representations
of reality, and it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically
to speak of one as being true and the other false. This shift
in emphasis from an either-or argument to a synthesis and acceptance
of both viewpoints is summed up by the well-known astronomer,
Fred Hoyle, as follows:
The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity]
is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the
main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking
at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate
transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point
of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory
is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful
physical sense.[1]
Relativity is the theory which is accepted as the correct one
by the great majority of scientists at present. However, many
science teachers and textbooks are not aware of this, and it
is not uncommon to find heliocentricity taught as the progressive
and "obviously true" theory even today.
4. What does the Bible teach about geocentricity?
To learn what the Bible teaches regarding geocentricity, it
is necessary to consider separately the three basic assertions
of uniqueness, centrality, and fixity mentioned above since
the composite "theory of geocentricity" is nowhere
mentioned in the Bible.
The assertion that the earth is unique and special (item "c"
above) is clearly and unequivocally taught in the first chapter
of Genesis. The plain sense of the creation account is that
all other heavenly bodies were not even brought into existence
until the fourth day of creation. Thus, God had already created
the earth, separated the waters above and below the atmosphere,
formed the earth into continents and oceans, and brought forth
vegetation upon the earth before He paused to create the solar
system, the Milky Way, and all of the other material bodies
in the universe. It is very clear that the creation of the earth
was distinct from that of any other heavenly body.
The Biblical doctrine of the uniqueness of the earth is strongly
supported by modern space exploration. In particular, every
effort by scientists to demonstrate that life does or possibly
could exist on other planets in our solar system has so far
failed. Such efforts have only served to underscore how different
the earth is in this regard from all other heavenly bodies which
we have been able to study. While the earth teems with life,
elsewhere space appears to be only barren and incredibly hostile
to life. The earth gives every indication that it was specially
designed for life, and it is unique in this regard.
In contrast to the bountiful evidence in the Bible which teaches
that the earth is special, nowhere is it taught that the earth
is the center of the universe (item "a" above). In
fact, the Bible provides no explicit teaching on any questions
relating to the form of the universe. We are not told, for example,
whether the universe is finite or infinite, and no explicit
statement can be found to help us know whether space is flat
or curved. This is the type of information we would need to
deduce whether the earth is at the center of the universe or
if it even makes sense to say that the universe has a center.
On matters relating to the physical form of the universe, the
Bible is mute.
This leaves the more controversial assertion (item "b"
above) that the earth is motionless in space to be discussed.
In fact, the Bible contains no explicit teaching on this matter
either. Nowhere does the Bible set about to deal explicitly
with the question of whether the earth is moving through space
or not. To be sure, one can fashion implicit arguments for an
immobile earth from the Bible, but in no instance do the Bible
verses used to accomplish this goal rest in a context of an
overall discussion of the physical form of the universe.
Evidently, while the physical form of the universe is an interesting
scientific issue, it is not of very great importance Biblically.
The lack of explicit Biblical teaching on this whole matter
makes it impossible to call any conceptual model of the form
of the universe "the Biblical view."
5. What is the role of geocentricity in creationism?
The Biblical status of the doctrine of creation contrasts sharply
with that of geocentricity. The Bible opens with the explicit
declaration: "In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth," and Genesis 1 goes on to outline in detail
the doctrine of creation. While it is impossible to find
any definitive teaching in the Bible on the physical form
of the universe, it is impossible to miss the explicit
teaching in the Bible that the world was supernaturally created
by God, for it permeates Scripture.
Geocentricity and creationism are really separate matters.
Because of the contrast in the way the Bible deals with these
two issues, I believe that attempts to link geocentricity and
creationism are ill-founded.
6. What can we learn of general importance from the geocentricity-helio-centricity
relativity debate?
Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the history
of geocentricity is in connection with the question, "What
role should scientific discovery play in the interpretation
of the Bible?" It is surely ironic to see the incident
of Galileo's trial before the Inquisition paraded as a supposedly
unarguable illustration of the "mistake" recent-creationists
make when they insist on a literal, supernatural, six-day creation
and fail to yield to modern scientific views of how the universe
came to be. "After all," we hear, "the theologians
said that Galileo's heliocentric viewpoint was heresy, but now
everybody knows that the theologians were wrong and Galileo
was right."
In actual fact, as we have seen above, the current scientific
consensus is that "Today we cannot say that the Copernican
theory [which Galileo held] is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory
[which the theologians held] 'wrong' in any meaningful physical
sense."[1]
The generally overlooked lesson here is that scientific theories
do not provide a very secure basis from which to interpret Scripture.
In the course of the last five hundred years the weight of scientific
consensus has rested in turn with each of three different theories
about the form of the universe: first geocentricity, then helio-centricity,
and now relativity.
This is the way it is with scientific theories—they come
and go. But the Word of God endures forever. Let us be immovable
in upholding what the Bible clearly teaches.
References
[1] Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus
(London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973), p. 78.
Bibliography
Bouw, D. "The Bible and Geocentricity." Bulletin
of the Tychonian Society, no. 41 (January, 1987), 22-25.
(A more recent work by Bouw is: Geocentricity [Cleveland:
Association for Biblical Astronomy, 1992].)Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann
Educational Books Ltd., 1973.Reichenbach, Hans. From Copernicus to Einstein. New
York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1980.Ronan, Colin Alistair. "Copernicus" The New
Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th ed. XVI, 814-815.
* Dr. Aardsma is Assistant Professor of Astro Geophyics at
ICR
