Geocentrism and Creation
Somecreationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did notbegin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of theheliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago. Thesepeople believe that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does notmove, and hence the only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentricone. Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments fortheir case. We examine these arguments, and find them poorly founded.The Scriptural passages quoted do not address cosmology. Somegeocentrists draw distinctions that do not exist in the originalautographs or even in translations. In short, the Bible is neithergeocentric nor heliocentric. While geocentrists present someinteresting scientific results, their scientific arguments are oftenbased upon improper understanding of theories and data. Much of theircase is based upon a misunderstanding of general relativity and therejection of that theory. While geocentrists are well intended, theirpresence among recent creationists produces an easy object of ridiculeby our critics.
Many critics of creationistsattempt to malign by suggesting that what creationists teach is akin tobelief in a flat Earth. This attack is easy to refute, because theBible does not teach that the Earth is flat, and virtually no one inthe history of the church taught this. In fact, the belief in a flatEarth is a 19th century myth that was concocted to discredit critics ofDarwinism. The supposed lesson of this myth was that the Church got itwrong before, so the Church has a chance to redeem itself by getting itright on the issue of evolution. This false lesson has been indeliblyimpressed upon common perception.
However, theChurch did support the wrong side of a scientific issue four centuriesago. That issue was the question of whether the Sun went around theEarth (geocentrism) or if the Earth went around the Sun (heliocentrism, which could be called geokineticismsincethe Sun is not regarded as the centre of the universe either, asdiscussed below). Being based upon real history, creationists in theorycould be accused of repeating this mistake by rejecting evolution.
Alas,there are recent creationists in the world today who are geocentrists.They teach that the rejection of God’s Word did not begin with Darwin’stheory of biological evolution or even with Hutton and Lyell’sgeological uniformitarianism. Instead, they argue that the scientificrebellion against God began much earlier with heliocentrism.
Manyevolutionists claim that disbelief in evolution is like disbelief thatthe Earth goes round the Sun. The obvious flaw is that the latter isrepeatable and observable while the former is not. But geocentristsgive evolutionists a target, so then it behoves the creation communityto have a ready response.
So far, there have been few critiques of geocentrism in the creation literature. One example is Don DeYoung’s defence of geokineticism in Creation magazine, where he presented some scientific arguments against a rigid geocentric view.1DeYoung has also debated a geocentrist called Martin Selbrede.2
Another is Aardsma’s ICR Impact article, where he points out something well known to high-schoolphysics students, but apparently not to bibliosceptics—that it’s validto describe motion from any reference frame, although an inertial oneusually makes the mathematics simpler.3 But there are many times when the Earth is a convenient referenceframe; i.e. at some point we all use the geocentric model in one sense.For instance, a planetarium is a geocentric model. Calculation ofrising, transiting, and setting of various celestial objects iscalculated geocentrically. There are numerous other examples. Sincemodern astronomers often use an Earth-centred reference frame, it’sunfair and anti-scientific to criticise the Bible for doing the same.
Butthis is hardly the issue, and the use of the geocentric model underthese circumstances hardly makes one a geocentrist. I’m using the termto describe those who claim that the Earth is the only valid reference frame and oppose the use of any other reference frame. What we need is an examination of the claims ofsuch geocentric creationists to see if there is any merit to what theyclaim. The claims will fall into three broad areas: 1) the Biblicalissues 2) historical record and 3) scientific evidence.
Perhapsthe best-known geocentrist in the world today is Gerardus Bouw, who hasbeen a professor at Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, Ohio for manyyears. He is founder and director of the Association for BiblicalAstronomy, as well as editor of Biblical Astronomer. Both areorgans for geocentrism. To distinguish modern geocentrism from ancientgeocentrism, Bouw has coined the term ‘geocentricity’ for the former.Bouw has a Ph.D. in astronomy from Case Western Reserve University, sohe certainly is in a position to know and understand the issues andliterature involved. Given Bouw’s stature as the chief champion ofgeocentricity, we will use his book by the same name as the primarysource on the topic.4 A much lesser source is a book by Marshall Hall.5 This book is poorly written, and thus will not be treated as a primarysource for discussing modern geocentrism. However, Hall’s claims areexamined in a separate book review in this issue of TJ.
Early in his book Bouw quotes the atheist Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and the supposedly agnostic6 Augustus De Morgan (1806–1871) on the supposed geocentric nature of the Bible.7 The appropriateness of quoting these two gentlemen apparently neveroccurred to Bouw. Since when did two mathematical logicians becomeauthorities in Biblical exegesis (like most bibliosceptics, they wereignorant of Biblical languages and historical context8—see also Bible ‘contradictions’ and ‘errors’)?
Being antagonistic toward the Bible and Christianity, both6 of these men had a vested interest in discrediting the Bible. Whatbetter way to do this than for them to falsely claim that the Biblesays things that are patently not true? This straw man technique is avery common strategy in attacking the Bible. A good example is thesupposedly incorrect value of p in 1 Kings 7:23–24 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, a topic that Bouw addresses very well.9
Bouw does quote10 an anonymous evangelical source on the geocentric nature of the Bible,but one must ask if that is indeed what Scripture teaches. There arefew Biblical texts that in any way even remotely address theheliocentric/geocentric question. In each instance there isconsiderable doubt as to whether cosmology is the issue. Some of theseverses are in the poetic books, such as the Psalms. It is poor practiceto build any teaching or doctrine solely or primarily upon passagesfrom the poetic books, though they can amplify concepts clearly taughtelsewhere. It is also important not to base doctrines upon any passagethat at best only remotely addresses an issue. That is, if cosmology isclearly not the point of a passage, then extracting a cosmologicalmeaning can be very dangerous.
The Galileo canard
Inthe middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman CatholicChurch did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? TheChurch’s response to Galileo (1564–1642) was primarily from the worksof Aristotle (384–322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It wasAugustine (AD 354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) and others who‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-ChristianChristians’. This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was afundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendousprice.
Confusion persists to today in that nearlyevery textbook that discusses the Galileo affair claims that it was amatter of religion vs science, when it actually was a matter of sciencevs science. Unfortunately, Church leaders interpreted certain Biblicalpassages as geocentric to bolster the argument for what science of theday was claiming. This mistake is identical to those today whointerpret the Bible to support things such as the big bang, billions ofyears, or biological evolution.11 Therefore, any evangelical Christian misinformed of this history whoopines that the Bible is geocentric is hardly any more credible asource on this topic than an atheist or agnostic.
Flat Earth myth
In his second chapter Bouw discusses the allegation that the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat. His refutation is good,12 except that he apparently accepts the notion that through the MiddleAges belief in a flat Earth was common, which is simply not true. Thehistorian Russell demolished this idea,13 and I have written on this as well14 (see also Does the Bible really teach a flat earth?).
Thisincludes the urban myth that Columbus was a lonely voice for a roundEarth, invented by Washington Irving in his 1828 book The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, a self-confessed mixture of fact and fiction.
Biblical support for geocentrism?
In the second chapter, Bouw also develops what he considers a Biblical model of the Earth’s structure.15 Others would legitimately question the soundness of his Biblicalargument here. Much of this model and what follows in the next chapteris based upon a distinction of the words ‘world’ and ‘Earth’ in theKJV. While this distinction is generally true, it is not obvious thatthe distinction is universal, and it is the original languages ofScripture that matter, not any translation.
‘ … it cannot be moved’
Bouw quotes part of Psalm 93:1 from the KJV, ‘ … the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved’.16 He claims that ‘stablish’ is the proper translation as opposed to‘establish’, that is used in most modern translations. He states thatthe former word means to stabilize, while the latter means to set up.However, none of the English dictionaries (including the Oxford) Iconsulted support this distinction. All of the dictionaries revealedthat ‘stablish’ is an archaic variation of ‘establish’. Bouw furtheralleges that this subtle distinction is also present in the Hebrew.This is patently not true, as can be demonstrated with Strong’sConcordance.17 The Hebrew word used in Psalm 93:1 is kûwn, which is translated as ‘stablish’, ‘stablished’, and ‘stablisheth’ only one time each outside of Psalm 93:1.The same word is translated as ‘establish’, or ‘established’, 58 timeselsewhere in the KJV. A closely related Hebrew word, qûwm is translated ‘stablish’ three times and as ‘establish’ or ‘established’ 28 times in the KJV. Indeed, kûwn appears twice in 2 Samuel 7:12–13,but is rendered ‘establish’ and ‘stablish’ in the same passage. Thusthe distinction that Bouw claims in these two words does not exist ineither Hebrew or English.
Bouw uses this unfounded distinction to draw some questionable meaning from 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10,18 where the word ‘establish’ is used in the latter verse. These passagesdeclare that the world is not to be moved, from which Bouw concludesthat the world does not move.
This is fallacious. The Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (mowt) is in the niphal stem, which often refers to the passive voice, as indeed it does here.This is reflected in the English translations—to be moved or not to bemoved suggests the action of an external or causative agent to bringabout change in position, but does not exclude the possibility ofmotion apart from an external agent. Bouw frequently chides those whodisagree with him on Biblical passages that speak of the rising of theSun by claiming that they accuse God of being a poor communicator.Therefore, we may apply Bouw’s standard to his own work: the Lord couldhave rendered these passages to read, ‘… the world does not move’, ifthat is what He intended. As is, these passages are hardly geocentric.
It is important to note that the same Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (môwt) in the same niphal stem is used in Psalm 16:8,‘I shall not be moved’. Presumably even Bouw wouldn’t accuse God ofpoor communication if he didn’t believe that the Bible taught that thePsalmist was rooted to one spot! Rather, the passage teaches that hewould not stray from the path that God had set for him. If that’s so,then it’s impossible to deny that ‘the world … cannot be moved’ couldmean that Earth will not stray from the precise orbital and rotationalpattern God has set for it.
In both 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10,the word ‘shall’ appears, which Bouw obviously and correctly takes asan imperative. However, the next passage that he discusses, Psalm 104:5,19 reads, ‘ … laid the foundations of the Earth that it should not be removed forever’.
Bouwnotes that the word ‘should’ is a conditional that does not necessarilyreflect things as they are. While it is true that many people today usethe word ‘should’ in this sense, this is not the correct and originalmeaning of the word (the usual intended meaning when many people say‘should’ is better conveyed by the word ‘ought’). The word ‘should’actually is the past tense of ‘shall’, and as such has the sameimperative meaning that that word has. Here Bouw makes much ado aboutthe dictionary meaning of the word ‘remove’, but he is very selectivein the use of the dictionary, as he apparently did not bother toconsult the meaning of the word ‘should’. As an aside, the words for‘shall’ and ‘should’ are understood but absent in Hebrew and wereinserted into English to make the passages intelligible. As such, thechoice of when, where, and which word to insert is a matter ofpreference or sense of the translator, and ought never be used as thebasis for any doctrine.
Sunrise and sunset
Muchof the case for geocentrism relies upon many Biblical passages thatrefer to sunrise and sunset. Geocentrists argue that since the Bible isinspired of God, then when He chose to use such terminology, the Lordmust mean that the Sun moves. By this reasoning, virtually allastronomers and astronomical books and magazines are geocentric,because ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ is exactly the language that suchsources use. Anyone who has spent much time watching the sky cantestify that each day the Sun, moon, planets, and most stars do rise,move across the sky, and then set. Such observation and description donot at all address what actually causes this motion. However, thegeocentrists will have none of it, insisting that language and usagemust conform to their standards. For instance, Bouw has suggested thewords, ‘tosun’ and ‘fromsun’20 for sunrise and sunset to better acknowledge what heliocentrists mean.It is extremely unlikely that these words will catch on, because theterms sunrise and sunset work so well.
The attempted coining of these new words demonstrates the desperate attempt to argue the point here. Quoting Bouw:
‘Either God meant what he wrote or he did not mean what he wrote and would, presumably, revise his original writing as well as write differently if he were to write today.’21
No,He would not, because there is probably not a language now or ever inexistence that has simple expressions that concisely and accuratelydescribes the heliocentric rising and setting of the Sun. Why do weneed such expressions when the ones that we now possess work so welland are understood in all cultures?
Elsewhere Bouwsuggests that those who disagree with him are virtually accusing God ofbeing a bad communicator or grammarian. Of course, we do not. However,Bouw has painted himself into a corner: if Bouw is wrong, then he isthe one who has made this accusation against our Creator. What hemisses is that cosmology is not being addressed at all in thesepassages. This extremely literal approach to the Bible is reverentlyintended, but it badly misses the mark. At some points it almost readsas a parody (and sadly it’s not much different from those ofbibliosceptics).
Bouw makes asimilarly poor case for his Biblical model for space. Light is a wave.All waves require a medium. For instance, sound waves travel in air andwater waves obviously use water as a medium. What is the medium inwhich light travels, given that light apparently can travel throughempty space? In classical physics the medium for light is called the‘ether’ or ‘aether’. However, modern physics takes a differentapproach, which will not be discussed here.22 Bouw maintains that modern physics is in error, and that the classicalaether indeed does exist. He further insists that the firmament firstmentioned in Genesis 1:6 is to be equated with the aether, going so far as to claim that the firmament is God’s chosen name for the aether.
Physicsaside for the moment, is this good exegesis? Hardly. First, there is aproblem with the use of the word ‘firmament’ in the King James Version.The Hebrew word is raqiya‘, which is a noun that comes from averb that means to beat out as into a thin sheet. Gold is a goodexample of this process. Gold is so malleable that hammers and othertools can be used to flatten and stretch the metal into very thinsheets that can be applied to objects to gild them. The question is,what property or properties are intended by the word raqiya‘?If one wants to get across the hardness of the object, usually a metal,being beaten out, then ‘firmament’ may not be a bad translation.
However, what if the intended property is the stretched out nature of the raqiya‘ rather than hardness? This is consistent with the terminology of Psalm 104:2, which speaks of the stretching out of the heavens, though admittedly the Hebrew word used there for heaven is shamayim. However, Genesis 1:8 explicitly states that God called the firmament (raqiya‘) heaven(s) (shamayim).Therefore, there is contextual Biblical evidence for equating these twoHebrew words, at least in some cases. If the stretched out nature ofthe raqiya‘ is what is intended, then ‘firmament’ is a badtranslation, while ‘expanse’ used in many modern translations is verygood.
How did the KJV come to use ‘firmament?’ The Septuagint rendered raqiya‘ as stereoma, which gives the meaning of something very hard. This was an obviousincorporation of Greek cosmology current at the time of the Septuaginttranslation. That cosmology had the Earth surrounded by a hardcrystalline sphere upon which were suspended the stars. In the Vulgate,Jerome followed the lead of the Septuagint and used the Latinequivalent firmamentum. The KJV translators merely anglicized this.
Thereare at least two ironies in Bouw’s insistence of the correctness of theword firmament. The first is that Bouw severely criticizes both theVulgate and the Septuagint as being terrible translations, going as faras to express doubt that the Septuagint even existed before the NewTestament.23 The second is that Bouw completely trashes ancient Greek philosophy,but blindly accepts the heavy influence of the same ancient Greekscience on this point.
A second problem with Bouw’s equating the raqiya‘ (firmament) with the aether is how the firmament is further discussedin the creation account. The first appearance of the word is on Day Twoof Creation Week when the waters were separated above and below andwith the firmament between. On Day Four, the Sun, moon, and stars wereset in the firmament. On Day Five, birds were made to fly in thefirmament. It is quite a stretch to conclude that the firmament must beall of space or even any stuff that may fill space. The most obviousconclusion is that the raqiya‘ is the Earth’s atmosphere or the sky. If this is true, then much of Bouw’s case is destroyed. [Ed. note: see also Is the raqiya‘ (firmament — KJV) a solid dome?]
Thevarious issues briefly discussed here are just a few of the manyexamples of how poorly Bouw handles Biblical matters. But these keyissues are enough for readers to question Bouw’s credibility onBiblical matters and his insistence that the Bible is geocentric.
Bouw claims that heliocentrism has led to all sorts of moral degeneracy.24 The example he discusses is astrology. This is a bizarre assertion,given that astrology flourished for millennia before the heliocentrictheory became popular, and seems to have decreased whereheliocentrism has flourished. Ironically, the dominant geocentrictheory of history, the Ptolemaic system, was devised primarily as atool to calculate planetary positions in the past and future as an aidfor astrological prognostications.
Johannes Kepler (1571–1630)
Johannes Kepler (1571–1630).
Keplercomes under great criticism by the geocentrists because of the greatrole that he played in the acceptance of the heliocentric model. Someof this criticism is quite strained. He is blasted for having dabbledin astrology, although it was common and, as shown, hardly confined toheliocentrists. He is also blasted for his supposed anti-Biblicalbeliefs25 as well as the insinuation that Kepler was dishonest in hisco-authoring the work of Tycho Brahe (1546–1601) after he had died.26 This latter charge includes a hint of a plagiarism charge, even thougha few pages earlier Bouw stated at the time this was an acceptablepractice.27 Bouw concludes that Kepler was not a Christian,26 which places him at odds with many other creationists who claim thatKepler was indeed a Christian. For instance, Morris included a sectionon Kepler.28 In addition, Morris listed Copernicus (1473–1543), Galileo, and Tychoat the conclusion of the chapter that briefly discussed Kepler asexamples of people, though while they may have not have been truebelievers in Christ, at the very least were theistic creationists. Bouwrejects all, save Tycho, as Christians.26
Bouwgoes to great lengths to salvage the reputation of Tycho, whosecosmology he and modern geocentrists advocate. That is, other planetsorbited the Sun, and the Sun and its retinue orbited the Earth. Whileadmitting Tycho’s well-known faults and failings during most of hislife, he claims without documentation that in the last year of his lifesome who worked with Tycho noticed a change in his life.29 Bouw concludes that this was salvation, though he has absolutely no evidence for this.
Bouwblasts the heliocentrists of four centuries ago as being ungodly andinsinuates that it was their ungodliness that motivated theiracceptance of the heliocentric theory. However, by Bouw’s own account of the events of Tycho’s life, his rejection of heliocentricity and thesuggestion of his alternate Tychonian cosmology far predated Tycho’salleged conversion. Thus the model favored by modern geocentrists washatched in the mind of an unregenerate man, even granting Bouw’s ownrevisionist historiography. Therefore, modern geocentrists teach thatthe heliocentric model is wrong because ungodly men originated it, butfail to apply the same standard to their favored geocentric theory.
WhileBouw finds little or no fault in Tycho, he relentlessly finds faultwith every heliocentrist. For instance, Bouw takes a swipe atCopernicus’ mathematical skills by noting that the best mathematiciansof his day were consumed with the laborious task of calculatinghoroscopes. According to Bouw, Copernicus had the time to spendinvestigating alternate cosmological models, because Copernicus was notgifted enough to be in demand for astrological calculations.30 With Bouw, Copernicus cannot win—if he had done horoscopes, Bouw wouldhave castigated him as a mystic dabbling in the occult; but since hedid not do horoscopes, it was because Copernicus was a poormathematician.
A few decades after the death ofCopernicus, the situation had not changed much, so it is not surprisingthat such a good mathematician as Kepler spent a good deal of timecalculating horoscopes. Apparently it has never occurred to Bouw thatthe reason that Tycho was available to pursue astronomical measurementsrather than produce horoscopes may have been the same reason that heclaimed that Copernicus had time to pursue other matters. Indeed, latein life, Tycho realized that he was not the best mathematician aroundand needed help in making sense of his observations. This caused Tychoto seek the best mathematician available, who happened to be Kepler.The simultaneous sycophantic treatment of Tycho and harsh criticism ofheliocentrists exposes some the logical flaws in Bouw’s case.
Anothercriticism of Copernicus is that he opined that the 10,000 epicyclesrequired to make the motions of the Sun, moon, planets, and stars wasan ‘unseemly’ large number and ‘unworthy’ of the Creator.31 Bouw takes Copernicus to task for failing to notice that the obviousflaw in his reasoning was the assumption that heavenly bodies must movein circles. However, the model under scrutiny at the time was thePtolemaic model, thus this error came from the philosophical musings ofthe ancient Greeks, not from Copernicus. Copernicus merely discussedthe only geocentric model of his day (the Tychonian model was stillmore than a half-century away). How Bouw can level this charge at aheliocentrist rather than at geocentrists where it properly belongsboggles the mind. It is as if the modern geocentrists wilfully ignorethe Ptolemaic model. Indeed, that model is barely mentioned in Bouw’sbook.
Heliocentrist vs geocentrist comparisons
Anotherexample of Bouw’s poor logic is the observation that ‘… the firstheliocentrists were pagans who did not hold the Bible in high esteem’.32 While this statement is technically true, it plants a very false andmisleading impression. Such a statement plants in the minds of manypeople that the near converse is true, that is, that the firstgeocentrists were not pagans and held the Bible in high esteem. Ofcourse this is nonsense. Virtually all that we know of ancient scienceand cosmology comes from the Greeks. Most of them were geocentrists.All of them were pagans. Claudius Ptolemy (fl. AD 127–145), who iscredited with the longest-lived geocentric model of all time, was apagan. By Bouw’s own ‘reasoning’ (leaving aside the blatant genetic fallacy), geocentrism should be rejected, because it has a long pagan history.
Of course, Bouw would respond that the Bible is explicitly geocentric.33 Since much of the Old Testament predates many of the secular sources,Bouw would claim that the earliest geocentrists were not pagan. Butthis begs the question—most of the quotes used to support thegeocentricity of the Bible are from fellow geocentrists or frombibliosceptics. Nearly all Bible-believing heliocentrists think thatthe Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric, but Bouw holds theiropinions on the matter in low regard.
As anotherexample of Bouw’s poor logic, consider that at several locations Bouwstates that the heliocentric theory came to be accepted in theseventeenth century without any proof. Here Bouw seems to be arguingagainst the legitimacy of heliocentricity, because it was prematurelyaccepted before there was any evidence. Yet, he also admits that by1650 there was no solid proof for or against either the heliocentric orTychonian models.26 Therefore, by Bouw’s standard we should reject both modelsin favor of the Ptolemaic model or some other alternative, but ofcourse Bouw insists that only the heliocentric model be subjected tosuch scrutiny. This sort of double standard is common in geocentricarguments.
Bouw blasts the perceived arrogance of Kepler,34 all the while overlooking or forgiving similar misgivings in Tycho. Ad hominem attacks are common in modern geocentric literature as well. As anexample, Bouw spends some time trashing Kepler for alleged witchcraftand dabbling in the occult.34 Even Kepler’s mother and other family members are brought into thediscussion. Bouw mentions that Marshall Hall, a fellow geocentrist, hasspeculated that Kepler may have poisoned Tycho.35 It’s a shame that two of the most prominent geocentricists feel thatthey need to resort to baseless inflammatory accusations.
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642).
Galileoalso comes under fire for his role in establishing the heliocentricmodel. While he did not invent the telescope, Galileo was apparentlythe first to put the telescope to use observing celestial objects. Hefound a number of things in the sky that ran counter to what thechurch, parroting ancient Greek ideas, said. Examples are the craterson the moon and spots on the Sun. Greek philosophers had reasoned thatthe moon and Sun, as celestial objects, had to be perfect. As such,they ought to have been free from blemishes such as craters and spots.
Galileoalso claimed evidence for the heliocentric theory in his discoveries.One of them, the rotation of the Sun, was bogus as proof ofheliocentrism, as Bouw states,36 but it was a persuasive argument in the pre-Newtonian world (cf. Isaac Newton 1643–1727 Gregorian Calendar). However, Bouw’s poisonedattitude toward all heliocentrists has prevented him from correctlydiscussing two other evidences for heliocentrism. One was the discoveryof four satellites, or moons, that orbit Jupiter. Galileo used this tocounter the objection to heliocentrism that the moon would be leftbehind if the Earth moved. It is obvious that Jupiter moves, and it isalso obvious that its motion does not leave behind the satellites ofJupiter. Bouw is correct that this is an argument by analogy, but onecannot so easily dismiss this argument. The critics of heliocentrismmust explain how the motions of Jupiter and its moons and the Earth andits moon are different.
However, Bouw misses one of the most important points of Galileo on this. The geocentric model of Galileo’s day was that all celestialobjects orbited the Earth. Here Galileo had found four celestialobjects that did not directly orbit the Earth, but instead orbitedsomething else. The geocentrists were not willing to give up an inch onthis, because their already overly complicated Ptolemaic model hadalready endured a tremendous amount of tinkering. They feared thatsurrendering this would lead to the discovery of other objects that didnot orbit the earth, which would further chip away the geocentric model.
Bouw completely misconstrues Galileo’s third evidence for heliocentrism, the phases of Venus.37 The full set of Venereal phases can happen only if Venus passes both infront of and behind the Sun as seen from Earth (Figure 1, left). ThePtolemaic model placed Venus orbiting the Earth closer than the Sun,but always near to the Sun as constrained by observations, but thatwould preclude gibbous phases from being seen since that would requirethe Earth to be roughly between the Sun and Venus. On the other hand,moving Venus’ orbit beyond that of the Sun would allow gibbous phases,but would not permit crescent phases to be seen.
Tychonian vs Ptolemaic geocentric models
TheAppendix contains a fuller comparison of these two geocentric modelsand the Copernican one, but it’s important to point out a number ofpoints in the main text.
Bouw suggests that thephases of Venus are a problem for the Ptolemaic model only if oneinsists upon using circles, and that Galileo’s argument falls flat ifellipses are allowed. The only thing that falls flat here is Bouw’sargument. The very reason that the Ptolemaic model existed was topreserve ‘perfect’ uniform circular motion, with the massive tinkeringinvolving epicycles (circles on circles) and even more complexextensions. The introduction of ellipses would have destroyed thePtolemaic model every bit as much as what Galileo was suggesting.Bouw’s defence of the status quo Ptolemaic model here andelsewhere is puzzling. Throughout much of his book it is easy to drawthe wrong conclusion that this is the model that Bouw is defending.Bouw does correctly point out that Galileo’s argument about the phasesof Venus does not distinguish between the heliocentric and Tychonianmodels, but this needlessly clouds the issue since the Tychonian modelwas not even being discussed at the time.
The truthof the matter is that the Tychonian model was a far less significantcontender than either the heliocentric or the Ptolemaic theories thanmodern geocentrists would have us believe. The reason is that theTychonian model was a sort of halfway house for geocentrists.Geocentrists could hold on to a stationary Earth while discardingvirtually everything else that was in the Ptolemaic model. Like so manyother compromises, the Tychonian model failed to satisfy many on eitherside. Nevertheless, Bouw does a clever slight of hand trick. He insiststhat heliocentrists of four centuries ago did not offer real proofs andfurther claims that they improperly attempted to shift the burden ofproof to the status quo. That is, in the absence of a real challenge to the status quo, the status quo should prevail. Bouw claims that that status quo was geocentrism, so his favoured geocentric model, the Tychoniansystem, should prevail. This is preposterous. The Tychonian system wasnot the status quo then; the Ptolemaic model was. Again andagain Bouw takes this sort of sloppy approach—he argues for thePtolemaic model and then slips his model in as a substitute. This ismost blatant when in a very late chapter in his book Bouw explicitlydiscusses geocentric models. There is no heading for the Tychonianmodel, but there is one for the Ptolemaic model.38 The problem is, the discussion and diagram clearly represent the Tychonian model.
Asmentioned earlier, Bouw fails to apply the same rigorous standards thathe applies to the heliocentric theory to his own pet model.
Forinstance, while he correctly notes that the failure to detect stellarparallax was an argument against the heliocentric model, he quicklyconcludes that this was circumstantial evidence for geocentrism (or ashe prefers, the Tychonian model).39 Of course the heliocentric model can explain the lack of trigonometricparallax if the stars are at incredible distances. This turned out tobe the case, and there is compelling evidence that even the neareststars are more than 200,000 times farther from us than the Sun is. Iflack of parallax was evidence against heliocentrism and forgeocentrism, then one would expect that when parallax was finallydetected in the 1830s, trigonometric parallax would be taken asevidence against geocentrism and for heliocentrism. However, this isnot Bouw’s conclusion. Instead, Bouw modifies the Tychonian model sothat the Sun in its annual motion drags along the distant stars. Inother words, Bouw cries foul whenever physicists change models (as withmodern relativity theory) to correctly describe new data, but he feelsfree to tinker with his model at will to meet the challenge of newresults. It is impossible to refute any theory with these kinds ofrules.
Bouw uses the same skewed rules in discussing star streaming.40 The Sun is moving through space, as can be deduced by proper motions(the gradual motion of stars across the sky) of many stars. The firstmeasurement of this was done more than two centuries ago by the greatGerman-born English astronomer William Herschel (1738–1822), though themeasurement has been refined many times since then. When the propermotions of many stars are considered, we find that stars seem to streamout of a region called the solar apex, presumably in the direction inwhich the Sun is moving. Conversely, stars appear to stream toward aconvergent point, called the solar antepex, diametrically opposed fromthe solar apex and presumed to be the direction from which the Sun ismoving. This would appear to be strong evidence that neither the Sunnor the Earth is the centre of the universe, but Bouw baldly assertsthat stars could be moving past the Sun rather than the other wayaround.
Rejection of Relativity
Onegeocentrist assumption is that modern relativity theory is wrong.Unfortunately, many creationists reject general relativity or at leastare very suspicious of it, mainly because they misunderstand it. Commonmisconceptions include the beliefs that general relativity does notallow for a preferred standard of rest and that general relativityleads to moral relativism. Mach’s principle, which is an importantassumption of general relativity, postulates that the sum of all themass in the universe offers the correct rest frame. This standard ofrest is not very different from the concept of absolute space assumedby Newton. General relativity does posit that there areabsolutes. Therefore, if two objects have relative motion, it ispossible to determine which, if either, is at rest and as such has notundergone acceleration. This explains the so-called twin paradox thatBouw mishandles.41
Thespeed of light is always a constant, regardless of one’s motion. Thelaws of physics are invariant under transformation of coordinates. Infact, Einstein himself preferred the name ‘Theory of Invariance’ forhis ideas, rather than ‘General Relativity’.
Early in the 20th century, moral relativists misappropriated the widespread acceptance ofEinsteinian relativity theory as support for their contention thatthere are no moral absolutes. Even aside from the scientificmisunderstandings, this is an elementary blunder in ethical theoryknown as the naturalistic fallacy, i.e. trying to derive what we ought to do from the way the natural world is. We should not be repelled from relativity theory by this misapplication by the moral relativists.
Fortunately,there are many creationists who have no problem with relativity. Forexample, Humphreys accepts and uses general relativity as a physicalbasis for his cosmology and has offered a very brief defence ofrelativity.42,43 A detailed defence of relativity from a creation perspective is badlyneeded. That will not be attempted here, but a few claims of thoseopposed to Einsteinian relativity in the context of geocentrism will bebriefly discussed.
Many of the critiques ofrelativity are repeated arguments that are often out of date. Forinstance, Bouw is critical of the much acclaimed 1919 and 1922 totalsolar eclipse observations that was taken as the first evidence forgeneral relativity.44 Bouw calls the 1922 observations (the better of the two sets of data)‘an obvious sham’ because there are 44 points below and 25 points abovethe curve supposedly fit to the data when a good fit should have aboutas many points above as below the curve. However when the referencequoted by Bouw on this point is checked, one finds that the curve isnot a fit to the data at all. Rather, the curve is the prediction ofgeneral relativity with the data plotted for comparison. The data fitthe curve pretty well, especially near the limb (edge) of the Sun,where gravitational deflection is most pronounced. Bouw further cloudsthe issue by claiming that other classical theories can explain theamount of deflection, though no plots comparing the predictions ofgeneral relativity and these classical theories are presented.
Aneven larger problem is that Bouw and other anti-relativists continue tobring up the 1919 and 1922 data as if the experiment has never beenrepeated or improved upon. Similar experiments have been conducted atmany eclipses since 1922 with the same results. However, all of theseexperiments suffer from errors of measurements that are comparable insize to the amount of deflection.
The good news is that for years Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) has been used to make the same sort of measurements.45 VLBI is the use of several radio telescopes separated by greatdistances to produce very accurate positions of point radio sources.Usually the point sources used for gravitational deflections due to theSun are quasars. An advantage to this method is that it is notnecessary to wait for a total solar eclipse. All one must do is observeduring the brief time once per year that the Sun passes near aparticular quasar(s) in the sky. The unprecedented positional accuracyof VLBI produces results that are in very good agreement with generalrelativity and not at all with classical predictions. Thesemeasurements even have allowed discrimination between variations upongeneral relativity. A related experiment involves time delays of radiosignals of interplanetary probes as they pass behind the Sun. Theresults of these studies also agree with the predictions of generalrelativity. Anti-relativists never mention these experiments.
Bouw also discusses the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit.46 He claims that relativists tout Mercury’s orbit, because that is theonly orbit’s precession for which relativity can account. While thatmay technically be true, it is very misleading in that it suggests tomost readers that the predictions of general relativity do not fit theorbits of other planets. This is not true, as Bouw’s own Table I shows.That table lists observed precession, the general relativitycalculations, and residuals for the four innermost planets. The totalprecession of Mercury’s orbit is actually quite a bit larger than whatthe table presents—the table’s value is what is left after allperturbations of classical physics are removed. The >40 arc secondsper century remaining was an unsolved mystery of classical physics.Bouw implies that the relatively large O-C’s (observed minuscalculated) for Venus and the Earth demonstrates that relativity failsfor those two planets. However, the residuals for those two planets arewell within the errors of observation as given in the second column ofthe table. The fit is very good. In other words, if general relativityfails to account for all of the orbit precession of Venus and Earth, itis not because of any shortcomings of the theory, but because theobservations are of insufficient precision to act as a discriminator.
Perihelionadvance is most pronounced for strong gravity (near the Sun) andelliptical orbits. Mercury works so well because it is so close to theSun and has a very elliptical orbit for a planet. The Earth and Venusare slightly farther from the Sun, but both have nearly circularorbits, so their perihelion advance is modest. The residual for Mars isslightly greater than the error, a fact for which I have no explanationat this time. Bouw did not bother to include data on the remainingplanets, because, being so far from the Sun, the predictions of generalrelativity would have been virtually zero, regardless of theeccentricities of those orbits. This trend of decreasing effect withdistance can be seen in the third column of Bouw’s table.
Also,relativistic advance of periastron has been studied and confirmed incertain binary stars with elliptical orbits. Of particular interest arebinary pulsars, where the stars are extremely close together and hencehave very strong gravity. Here, both the measurements and calculationsare very large and hence offer a good laboratory not only for testinggeneral relativity but also for suggested variants. The predictions ofgeneral relativity and the data agree well. Therefore, Bouw’s claim onorbital precession is out of date, just plain wrong, or both.
Muchof the rest of Bouw’s writing on general relativity demonstrates asimilar lack of understanding of the model. For instance, his questionas to how a photon detects the gravity of an object that it just leftreveals that he has overlooked the role of space-time curvature ingeneral relativity.47
Misconceptionsabound elsewhere. Bouw claims alleged orbital resonances between theEarth and other solar system objects as evidence for geocentrism.48 Venus is said to display the same face toward the Earth each time thatthe Earth and Venus are closest. However, the reference cited for thissays something quite different. The reference acknowledges that anolder value for the rotation period of Venus did suggest a resonance,but that the new measurement of the period does not.
Thediscussion of Mercury’s alleged resonance is completely garbled. Bouwsays that its rotation is weakly coupled to the Sun at ‘roughlytwo-thirds of the length of its year’. It is coupled at a 2:3 ratio bya factor of nearly one part in 10,000, which is hardly rough agreement.Furthermore, any resonance with the Earth is illusory in that Mercuryis not well placed for observations except during its brief greatestelongations near its aphelion. The aforementioned 2:3 ratio with theSun assures that a similar side will face the Earth each time similarviewing opportunities present themselves.
Whileconceding that the outer (Jovian) planets do not appear to exhibit suchresonances, Bouw also casts doubt upon the exact rotation periods ofthe these planets, because they are determined from motions of cloudtops in the atmospheres of these planets. However, Voyager data fixedthe true rotational periods of these planets by the rotations of theirmagnetic fields. In each case these periods matched those determinedfrom average cloud measurements quite well.
Many ofthese problems could have been avoided if Bouw’s work had been peerreviewed. It appears that it was self-published without the benefit ofoutside review. Independent review could have caught other unfortunatelapses and poor use of terms even though they are not factual errors.These include the use of the word ‘nebulae’ to describe externalgalaxies,49 a term that has been out of favour for decades, the misnaming and garbling of Kepler’s third law of planetary motion,50 and what appears to me to be the blurring of rotation and revolution.51
Onlysome of the problems with Bouw’s scientific case for geocentrism havebeen discussed here. But they should be enough to show that Bouw’sargument is poorly founded.
Ihave examined the claims of leading modern geocentrists and have foundthat their insistence that the Bible teaches geocentrism is not wellfounded. It would be helpful if someone with formal theologicaltraining could further explore and refute this claim.
Geocentricarguments are predicated upon a rejection of modern relativity theory,based on ignorance of what it teaches. Humphreys suggests that‘creationists who oppose relativity have mistakenly identified the"baggage" with the theory itself’ and would like ‘all creationists tosee relativity as a somewhat odd and well-intentioned friend’.43 A detailed contribution on general relativity by a creationist with expertise in the field would be most welcome.
Geocentristsimproperly handle other scientific and historical information as well.While it is true that four hundred years ago most embraced theheliocentric theory a century before there was direct evidence for thetheory, that does not mean that there was evidence against the theory.Acceptance of heliocentrism came about because of application ofOccam’s razor. The Sun-centred system was far simpler than the primarygeocentric model, the Ptolemaic system. Note that William of Ockham wasa Christian, and both Copernicus and Galileo believed that a simplermodel glorified God who is ‘simple’ (theologically, this means notcomposed of parts).
The geocentrists’ claim thatthe proper and logical alternative of the Tychonian model should havebeen accepted is not founded by the facts of history—the Tychoniantheory was never a serious contender. Subsequent experiments, such asaberration of starlight and trigonometric parallax are better explainedin the heliocentric model rather than any geocentric theory.
Whilethe intentions of the geocentrists are good, they offer a very easytarget of criticism for our critics. We should establish some distancebetween the mainstream creation movement and the geocentrists.
Appendix: Geocentric and Heliocentric models
Tobetter understand geocentricism and heliocentrism, we should comparethe models. In reality, there are three theories, two geocentric andone heliocentric.
The heliocentric model is easiestto explain and understand. This is the model described and/ordiagrammed in almost every astronomy book: the planets orbit the Sun innearly circular orbits. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), a Polishastronomer and mathematician (and a Canon in the Roman Church), isgenerally credited with the establishment of the heliocentric theory,though he did not originate the idea. Copernicus’ great achievement wasauthoring a book, De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres)published about the time of his death. In his book Copernicus put fortharguments for the heliocentric theory, but also worked out the relativesizes of the orbits and the correct orbital periods of the planets forthe first time.
Later, Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) refined the Copernican system by positing that the planets’ orbits are actually ellipses with the Sun at one focus of each ellipse. This is the first ofKepler’s three laws. His other two laws establish the rates at whichplanets move in their orbits (at all times in any planet’s orbit, theplanet-Sun vector sweeps out the same area per unit time) and arelationship between the periods and sizes of the planets’ orbits (thecube of the radius (strictly the semi-major axis) is proportional tothe square of the period). Kepler’s three laws were empirically deducedusing two decades of careful observations of planetary positions madeby Tycho Brahe (1546–1601).
Decades after Kepler,Isaac Newton (1643–1727), using his newly discovered calculus andmechanics, was able to deduce Kepler’s three laws of planetary motiontheoretically. This was taken as a great triumph of Newtonian mechanicsand verification of Kepler’s work.
The most famousgeocentric theory is credited to Claudius Ptolemy, an Alexandrian Greekof the second century ad, though it is unclear exactly how much of themodel was original to him. Ptolemy wrote a lengthy book originallycalled Ἡ Μαθηματικὴ Σύνταξις (Hē Mathēmatikē Syntaxis = The Mathematical Treatise). This became known as Ἡ Μεγάλη Σύνταξις (Hē Megalē Syntaxis = The Great Treatise). 9th century Arabs used the Greek superlative Μεγιστη (megistē) meaning ‘greatest’, then prefixed the Arabic definite article al, so the book is now best known to us as the Almagest, the Latin form of the Arabic name الكتاب المجسطي, al-kitabu-l-mijisti.This is a compilation of all ancient Greek astronomy, and is theprimary source of information on the subject. Also in the Almagest is a complete treatment of the Ptolemaic cosmology.
Asseen from the Earth, the five planets visible to the naked eye slowlymove through the stars, generally in a west-to-east direction. Thismotion is called direct, or prograde. However, from time to time theplanets reverse direction and move east to west in what is calledindirect or retrograde motion. This seemingly erratic behavior iseasily explained in the heliocentric theory. Figure 2 (right) is adiagram of the orbits of the Earth and a superior planet (those withorbits larger than those of the Earth), such as Mars. As both planetsorbit the Sun, Mars usually exhibits direct motion. However, wheneverthe Earth passes between Mars and the Sun, Mars undergoes retrogrademotion. Mercury and Venus are inferior planets, those with orbitssmaller than the Earth’s. Inferior planets undergo retrograde motionwhen they pass between the Earth and the Sun.
Theancient Greeks needed to explain planetary motion in a geocentric way,which would not have been difficult to do, but they also had a coupleof artificially imposed constraints that greatly complicated theproblem. They believed that objects in the heaven were perfect, and assuch, followed perfect motion. To the ancient Greeks, the most perfectmotion was uniform motion on circles. The Ptolemaic model explainsplanetary motion with these constraints, but it is not simple, as shownin Figure 3 (left). A planet moves uniformly on a circle called an epicycle, and the epicycle in turn moves uniformly on a circle called the deferent.
Forthe time being we will assume that the deferent is centred on theEarth. By adjusting the sizes of the epicycle and the deferent, and thespeeds with which the planet moves on the epicycle and the epicyclemoves on the deferent, the planet will occasionally exhibit retrogrademotion. Retrograde motion occurs whenever the planet passes close bythe Earth between the Earth and the centre of the epicycle. At allother times the two motions will combine to produce direct motion.
Whilethis relatively simple model will explain prograde and retrogrademotion qualitatively, it fails on detail, so additional complicationswere added to improve the fit to reality. For instance, the Earth isnot exactly at the centre of the deferent, but is a little off-centre.This actually is an attempt to approximate Kepler’s first law, i.e.that planets move in elliptical orbits about the sun, which is at oneof the ellipse’s two foci. This is because the elliptical orbits of theplanets deviate so little from a circle that off-centre circles canapproximate them. Furthermore, the epicycle does not move at a uniformrate with respect to the centre of the deferent or the Earth. Instead,the epicycle moves at a constant rate with respect to a point calledthe equant. The equant is collinear with the centre of thedeferent and the Earth and is at the same distance from the centre thatthe Earth is, but on the other side of the centre.
This refinement isan attempt to model Kepler’s second law of planetary motion (seediagram, right). While the epicycle is moving at a uniform rate withrespect to the equant, it does not move at a uniform rate with respectto the centre of the deferent or even with respect to the Earth.Therefore the introduction of this concept is a desperate attempt tosalvage uniform circular motion, all the while violating the spirit ofthat assumption.
Still other refinements wererequired. The planets do not follow orbits in the same plane of theEarth’s orbit (the ecliptic). This causes the planets to alternatelydip above and below the ecliptic. Ptolemy’s model explains this byepicycles that are in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the otherepicycles. While the Sun and moon do not experience retrograde motion,they do have inhomogeneities in their motions that required additionalsmall epicycles to explain their motion around the Earth.
Fornearly 1,500 years the Ptolemaic model was used, making it one of themost successful scientific theories of all time. Throughout the MiddleAges, small discrepancies between the predictions of the Ptolemaicmodel and reality were fixed by the addition of more epicycles. By theRenaissance, the Ptolemaic model had become very unwieldy, which ledmany people, such as Copernicus, to conclude that the model may not becorrect. It is not clear if Ptolemy actually intended the theory to betaken as a statement of reality. It could be that he meant it merely asa method of calculating planetary positions. If so, this would havebeen a very modern view of what a theory is. Whether Ptolemy intendedthis or not is immaterial, because during the Middle Ages the Ptolemaicmodel was elevated to the status of truth, and even the Church hadsublimated certain Biblical passages to fit this perceived truth.
Tychorealized the problems with the Ptolemaic model, but he could not bringhimself to fully reject geocentrism. Therefore, Tycho proposed hiscompromise geocentric theory, as shown in Figure 5 (left). In theTychonian system the Sun orbits the Earth once per year, and the otherplanets orbit the Sun. In the modern Tychonian system, Keplerian andNewtonian principles are maintained, as in the heliocentric theory.Mathematically, the essential difference between the heliocentric andTychonian models is a co-ordinate change from the Sun to the Earth.Apparently no one has believed the Ptolemaic model for a long time.Therefore, all modern geocentrists support the Tychonian model.
- DeYoung, D., Does the Earth really move? A look at geocentrism, Creation 10(3):8–13, 1988. Return to text.
- A cassette of this debate is available from Geo/Helio Productions, 1541 Old Ranch Road, Camarillo, CA, 93012-4424, USA. Return to text.
- Aardsma, G., Geocentricity and Creation. Impact 253, 1994. Return to text.
- Bouw, G.D., Geocentricity, Association for Biblical Astronomy, Cleveland, 1992. Return to text.
- Hall, M., The Earth is not Moving, Fair Education Foundation, Cornelia, Georgia, 1991. Return to text.
- Actually, De Morgan called himself a ‘Christian unattached’ because he didn’t care for England’s state church hierarchy or the politics of Trinity University where he worked. His testimony: ‘I commend my future with hope and confidence to Almighty God; to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom I believe in my heart to be the Son of God but whom I have not confessed with my lips because in my time such confession has always been the way up in the world’, Newman, J.R., (Ed.), The World of Mathematics 4:2368 Simon and Schuster, New York, 1956. As shown in this article, De Morgan is not the only person whose faith Bouw attacks, and it calls into question the reliability of his quote. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 2–3. Return to text.
- The Rogues Gallery and Rogues Cemetery on the Tekton Apologetics site provide good answers to an assortment of bibliosceptics. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 207–208. See also Grigg, R., Does the Bible say pi equals 3.0? Creation 17(2)24–25, 1995. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 4. Return to text.
- Grigg, R., The Galileo Twist, Creation 19(4):30–32, September–November 1997; Schirrmacher, T., The Galileo Affair: history or heroic hagiography, CEN Tech. J. 14(1):91–100, 2000. Return to text.
- See also Holding, J.P., Is the ’erets (earth) flat? Equivocal language in the geography of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely, CEN Tech. J. 14(3)51–54, 2000. See also Seely’s response and Holding’s reply, TJ 15(2): Return to text.
- Russell, J.B., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Praeger Paperbacks, Westport, 1997. Return to text.
- Faulkner, D.R., Creation and the flat Earth, Creation Matters 2(6):1–3, 1997. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 17. Particularly notice the diagram here. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 21. Return to text.
- Strong, J., Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon Press, New York, 1890. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 24–25. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 26–29. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 102. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 103. Return to text.
- Humphreys cites Einstein’s 1920 return to the view of a luminiferous ether, ‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity’, in Refs. 42 and 43. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 119–122. Another irony is that Bouw relies heavily on the KJV, while its translators, in their preface to the original KJV-1611, commended the Apostles focusing the Septuagint although it was not as good as the ‘Originall’ [sic]! Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 108–109. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 184–187. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 176. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 161. Return to text.
- Morris, H.M., Men of Science—Men of God, Master Books, El Cajon, California, pp. 11–13, 1982. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 175–176. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 160. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 162. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 144. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 140, 177. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 186. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 187. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 188. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 189. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 309–311. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 201. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 232–234. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 267–269. Return to text.
- Humphreys, D.R., Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, pp. 104–105, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994. Return to text.
- Humphreys, D.R., God created relativity, Bible-Science News 33(3):10–11, 1995. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 263. Return to text.
- Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S. and Wheeler, J.A., Gravitation, William Freeman, San Francisco, pp. 1104–1105. 1973. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 264–265. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 276. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 296–298. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, p. 253. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 181–182. Return to text.
- Bouw, Ref. 4, pp. 226–229. Return to text.