Scripture and Science "In Conflict" Site Map
Back to Geocentricity Index
Another Look at Galileo by John Byl
Renewal," May 13, 1993)
Almost every book dealing with
science and Christianity discusses the Roman Catholic Church's17th century
condemnation of scientist Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642). As is well known,
Galileo promoted the Copernican theory that the earth was moving about a fixed
sun. The Roman Church held this to be contrary to the Bible, which spoke of a
Nowadays most people are
convinced that the church was wrong, that the earth is in actual motion. The
church's treatment of Galileo has caused endless embarrassment to Christians.
Many Christian apologists have resorted to various ways to reinterpret the
troublesome passages in Scripture that were once used against Galileo. After
have suffered centuries of ridicule, the Roman Church, in October 1992, reversed
its judgment on Galileo.
In a recent series of three
articles in Christian Renewal, Johan Tangelder writes on these matters. While he
presents an excellent review of the historical aspects of the case, his comments
regarding the relation of science to Scripture raise a number of far reaching
questions. The main problem is that Tangelder, along with most Christians, has
missed the point: Galileo was wrong.
The Question of Motion
Is the earth really moving
about a fixed Sun, as Galileo claimed? First, a minor matter: it is no longer
accepted by modern science that the sun is fixed. Nowadays the sun itself is
thought to move within our Galaxy, which in turn is moving with regards to other
nearby galaxies, and so on.
What about the major issue: the
supposed motion of the earth? Everyone "knows" that the earth is moving. Yet if
you ask anyone for proofs, all the response you are likely to get is: science
has proven it.
The scientific situation is,
however, not quite so simple.
Of course, it is clear that the
earth and the stars are moving with respect to each other. But this could be
explained in different ways. We could take earth as moving with respect to the
fixed stars. Or we could take the stars as moving with respect to a fixed earth.
Or we could take both to be in motion with respect to some other fixed point.
Observationally these are all the same since all we can ever observe is relative
motion, not absolute motion.
Thus to make the claim that it
is "really" the earth, rather than the rest of the physical universe that is
moving is to go beyond the observational evidence.
Moreover, think of it, what can
it possibly mean to say that, for example, the physical universe beyond the
earth is at rest? At rest with respect to what? The implication is that there
exists some larger aspect of reality with respect to which the motion of the
physical universe can be measured.
Even if this were so this still
leaves the further question as to whether this larger universe is "at rest" and
with respect to what.
To see whether the earth is
"really" moving we must step outside the physical universe onto a fixed resting
point. This only God can do. Hence, ultimately, it is only God who can
adequately answer the question of absolute motion. In short, the question as to
whether it is really the earth or the sun that moves cannot be answered through
scientific investigation. There are no direct proofs of the earth's motion;
there can't b e. At its deepest level the question is not even scientifically
This limitation of scientific
knowledge has been stressed by many great scientists and philosophers. It is
nowadays generally granted by scientists that the question of absolute motion is
not a scientific one. To quote the famous British philosopher Bertrand Russell:
Before Copernicus, people
thought that the earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it
once a day. Copernicus taught that "really" the earth revolves once a day,
and the daily rotation of sun and stars is only "apparent." But in the
modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely
one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference
between the two... Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if
we take the earth... But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute
motion, which is a fiction. It is a mere convention to take one body as at
rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are
equally convenient. [Russell "The ABC of Relativity (London: Allen & Unwin,
It is amusing to note that in
scientific circles there has been some discomfort over Galileo's stance. After
the Vatican's recent rehabilitation of Galileo an editorial in Nature, a British
science magazine, admonished the Vatican for doing it so belatedly and
grudgingly. But then the editor goes on to wonder whether the Earth goes about
the Sun in any but a relative sense, adding
Galileo was probably too
good a scientist to commit himself to an absolute view. [Nature 360 (5
Here the Nature editor is
wrong: it was precisely Galileo's insistence on an absolute view of the earth's
motion that got him into trouble.
Thus we conclude that Galileo
was scientifically unjustified in claiming the absolute motion of the earth.
It may well be that we favour a
particular reference point (e.g., the earth, the sun, or the centre of the
galaxy) so highly that we may wish to consider it as fixed in some real,
absolute sense. We may then define that as the standard by which "absolute"
motion is to be measured.
Our choice of what we shall
define to be the absolute standard of rest will clearly be grounded upon
philosophical rather than observational considerations. We note in passing that
Galileo never clearly defined what he actually meant by "absolute" motion.
The Bible and Geocentricity
How should we view the Biblical
references to a fixed earth?
We could take this as merely
giving a definition of absolute motion. The frame of reference of the Bible is
clearly geocentric: positions and motions are measured relative to the earth.
Consider, for example, Joshua's command for the Sun and Moon, rather than the
earth, to stand still. As we have seen, there can be no scientific objection to
such a definition of absolute motion; the choice of absolutes is a philosophical
matter. One may prefer another choice but one cannot fault the Bible for
applying a geocentric point of view.
Yet Biblical geocentricity is
more than a mere arbitrary definition. It is also of great theological
importance: man, the crown of creation, is placed on the specially prepared
earth; the sun, moon, and stars are created primarily to serve as lights for
earth-bound man; the earth is the unique place where the battle between good and
evil is fought, where Christ was born and will return to reign.
Consider also the creation
account of Genesis 1, where the earth is created before the Sun and stars. It is
of interest to note Prof. N.H. Ridderbos's treatment of Genesis 1. Ridderbos was
convinced that, on purely exegetical grounds, the creation days should be taken
as literal days. But he felt that this reading implied a geocentric universe,
which he (erroneously) considered to have been scientifically falsified. Hence,
on the basis of Copernicanism, he rejected a literal reading of Genesis. [N.H.
Ridderbos, Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957, pp.42_44.] It is clear, then, that more is at stake here
than may first meet the eye.
Finally, there is the question
of heaven. The Biblical evidence (e.g., the ascension of Christ)implies that
heaven has a spatial aspect. Perhaps the earth's rest is ultimately to be
defined in terms of God's heavenly throne (see, for example, such texts as Gen.
28:12_13; Is.66:1; Acts 1:9¬11; Acts 7:5; Rev. 21, etc.). It must be stressed
here that modern science can deal only with the physical universe of our
observations. It can tell us nothing regarding the spiritual world. Yet it is
this latter realm that is of far greater ultimate significance.
While Biblical geocentricity
has obvious theological meaning, it is not clear to me that it has any physical
consequences. The Biblical evidence does not demand that the earth is in the
exact geometric centre of the universe nor that a fixed earth leads to more
convenient scientific theories. It has no direct observational implications. But
it does point to a deeper reality beyond our physical world.
Science and Scripture
Although Galileo had no valid
proofs, he presented the Copernican theory as a truth before which Scripture -
or at least its interpretation - had to bow. This brings us to the crucial issue
in the Galileo case: scientific theorizing versus Biblical authority. Which is
to have the final say?
With Galileo the scientific
interpretation of nature came to be considered to be of such great reliability
that it could dictate the content of Scripture.
This exalted view of scientific
speculation is precisely the same as that of the theistic evolutionists of
today. Thus one must be extremely careful here: modifying our Bible to suit
Copernicus, innocent as this may seem, leaves us very much open to the similar
claims of the evolutionists.
Galileo used various devices to
get around the Biblical texts concerning geocentricity. For example, the purpose
of the Bible was held to be to teach theology, not science; the Bible used
non-scientific language; the Bible accommodated itself to common beliefs. I am
disappointed that Tangelder does not clearly refute these faulty arguments.
Indeed Tangelder seems rather sympathetic to them. He goes so far as to accuse
Martin Luther, who (correctly in my opinion) opposed Copernicus on Biblical
grounds, of misunderstanding the relation of science to Scripture. Tangelder,
too, tries to save the Bible from Copernicanism by claiming that the Bible
merely uses the language of appearances.
Tangelder's position involves a
reduction in Biblical authority. By limiting the Biblical language to
appearances it implies that science somehow has access to deeper truths that go
beyond the appearances. Yet this has things upside down. It is, on the contrary,
science that should be limited to appearances: only the basic observations are
reliable. Once we try to explain these in terms of scientific
theory we enter the realm of speculation.
To sum up, my main point is
that Galileo erred in his claim that the earth was in absolute motion. The
question of absolute motion is not a scientific one; science can deal only with
Hence it is not necessary for
Christians to resort to questionable limitations of Biblical authority or
dubious hermeneutical schemes. Let us, on the contrary continue to uphold a high
view of God's inerrant word, interpreting it according to sound hermeneutical
principles, and accepting its full authority on all that it speaks.