Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.

Refuting absolute geocentrism

Refutation of our detractors


Published: 6 September 2016 (GMT+10)
In this depiction of the Tychonic system, the objects on blue orbits (the moon and the sun) rotate around the earth. The objects on orange orbits (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) rotate around the sun. Around all is a sphere of stars, which rotates.
Credit: en.wikipedia.org

After the publication of our lengthy exposition and explanation of the kinetic model of the universe, refuting absolute geocentrism, we received many comments. Some responders noted that we failed to directly engage with the proponents of geocentrism. This is true. Actually, it was by design. We also deliberately didn’t refer to previous modern creationist critics of geocentrism. By building the strongest case for geokinetics we could, our aim was to establish the scriptural and scientific validity of the theory first. Others said we dealt unfairly with the geocentrists, which we do not think is true.

We also knew that the supporters of geocentrism would eventually attempt to refute our arguments, which has indeed happened. The most detailed response was by a Roman Catholic man named Robert Sungenis,1 who seems to have taken over from a Protestant man named Gerardus Bouw as the most vocal geocentrist, and a few of the other respondents restated many similar arguments.

Per creation.com rules, we cannot post live links to the critiques of our article. And, since we received responses from multiple people (many via e-mail) it would be too confusing to answer them one at a time. So we will pool the criticisms and try to deal with them simultaneously. Analyzing their efforts is frustrating, to say the least, for in some ways they misrepresent what we wrote and in others fail to take into account the implications of their own theory. We also fear for the inevitable “death by a thousand e-mails” that may come from that small community if we directly engage these arguments. Yet, we do this for the sake of completion. We hold nothing against them, except where our beliefs are misrepresented or unfairly maligned. What follows is only a brief response to some of the major claims.

  1. We do not need to defend our defense of the early scientists who pioneered geokinetic theory. Most geocentrists today are Catholic, and most of geokinetic pioneers were Catholics (for example, the priest Buridan, the bishop Oresme, the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, the canon Copernicus, and, of course, Galileo). If the pioneers were acting contrary to the teachings of that church, well, they can clean their own house. In fact, we thought we were being quite generous to the Catholics, especially since the ‘Church’ by and large sponsored the scientific data collection that led to the eventual rejection of geocentrism. Being Protestants ourselves, if certain members of the Catholic church decide to proclaim anathema on someone, we reserve the right to our own judgment. At the least, we demonstrated that we can separate the men (with all of their inherent foibles and sins) from the data. We are not trying to be gadflies, but we do wonder if their views on evolution and the age of the earth match those of the most recent papal pronouncements? To be fair, we are friends with an eminent Catholic theologian and priest who is a young-earth creationist and not a geocentrist.
  2. We were careful to separate “absolute geocentrism” (where the earth is fixed in place and everything rotates around it) from geocentrism in general (where earth is simply used as a convenient reference frame). Among the former are the Ptolemaic model (where everything orbits the earth) and the Tychonian model (where the sun and moon orbit the fixed earth but the planets orbit the sun). The “neo-Tychonian” view of some of the modern proponents of geocentrism tries to take the purely descriptive (“kinematic”) model of Tycho Brahe and turn it into a physical (“dynamic”) model where the earth is balanced in place by the forces of gravity. We are not certain that it is fair to call the neo-Tychonic model “absolute geocentrism” because the earth is not fixed in place so much as it is supposedly balanced in place by the sum of the relevant forces. Nevertheless, there was a strong trend in their responses to assert that the phrase “absolute geocentrism” referred to the neo-Tychonian system. Yet we were generally accused of mistakenly calling the Tychonian system a kinematic model, instead of a dynamic model. But Tycho Brahe’s system is absolutely a kinematic model (it only describes motion, not the reason for the motion). It is a mathematical system that attempted to explain the then-available data, but did so without physics. It is simply not true to assert otherwise. It is the neo-Tychonian model that attempts to be a dynamic model. But, as we pointed out at length in our article, and we will add several additional points below, the neo-Tychonian model fails as a dynamic explanation for how the universe works.
  3. iStockphoto solar-system
  4. Sadly, we saw multiple examples of a failure to understand basic science. Several examples follow:

    1. It was claimed that geokinetic theory cannot explain why the planets don’t fly off into space, since “gravity only acts at the speed of light” (some geocentrist models require gravity to propagate at infinite velocity). Actually, since the sun’s gravitational field permeates the solar system, this is no problem at all. Jupiter, for example, experiences the sun’s gravitational attraction at all points and at all times in its orbit and it is exactly the correct gravitational attraction to keep it in orbit at that distance. Even if gravity waves arriving at Jupiter are delayed by a couple of minutes as they propagate outward from the sun, there is never a time when gravity is not there. In any case, under General Relativity, gravity curves space, and that curvature is always there. Also, the recent measurement of two black holes colliding is evidence that gravity propagates as a wave and at the speed of light (We already know that many of them reject this experimental evidence. Update: there has been a second detection. Also, Hartnett has defended the data interpretation.).
    2. Another area of criticism dealt with questions about where the planets get their continual force to move forward. “Why don’t the planets spiral into the sun?” The answer is simple: Newton’s First Law, of course! Once the planet is set in motion, it will continue in motion until acted on by an outside force. Since there is no appreciable drag acting on the planets, they continue to orbit. Another part of their model requires ‘ether’ and they believe this ether would cause drag on objects moving through space. Yet, there is essentially no friction in space, and we have measured it by sending multiple space probes through the essentially frictionless void of space without ever having to take any ether-caused drag into account.
  5. Non-Newtonian misunderstandings:

    1. We see that geocentrists reject time dilation in general, claiming that clocks slow down because of the mechanical effects of gravity or inertial forces. We wonder how an atomic clock (the only clocks sensitive enough to detect time dilation), that is in turn based on molecular vibrations in crystals, is subject to mechanical interference. Also, the amount of time dilation in GPS satellites is exactly the amount predicted by Einstein—before the technology to measure time dilation was available. How can anyone say “no one has detected time dilation”, as at least one prominent geocentrist does, without first rejecting the experimental results that support it?
    2. Einstein is often accused of lying about the changing perihelion of Mercury, although Urbain Le Verrier had shown this to be a problem for Newtonian physics in 1859, 20 years before Einstein was born. And these anti-relativistic geocentrists also claim that there was no evidence in Eddington’s eclipse photos showing a bending of starlight. Michelson and Morley’s apparatus is usually accepted as proving ether exists instead of being taken as an equivocal result that proves nothing. What can one do when faced with stubborn refusal to engage the most salient arguments?
    3. We also saw several examples of people rejecting redshift/blueshift for calculating local motion, but nobody explained why, when we measure the absorption lines of hydrogen here on earth, those same apparent absorption lines seen in interstellar objects are shifted one way or the other? Some contradicted themselves by accepting that there is local, independent motion of stars and galaxies. But how can we “know” this without trusting the spectral line data? And what are the implications of local motion in the geocentric model? Clearly, the stars are not “fixed” in relation to one another. What then holds them in their respective places as they whirl about the earth at incredible speeds? Why do neighboring stars orbit at the same rate as distant galaxies when there is a multi-billion-fold difference in their respective distances? What causes them to orbit once a day when some are very close compared to others and nothing is fixing them in place with respect to one another? And if nearby stellar objects (those with the greatest gravitational effects impinging on the earth) have relative motion, how much of a potential effect would this have on ‘balancing’ earth at the center of the universe?
    4. It pains us to note that many of them do not believe in the moon landings. If one has to reject so much operational science in order to explain the universe, science cannot then be used to explain the universe. So why bother to try to build a ‘scientific’ model at all? This is their greatest Achilles’ heel.
  6. As far as the geocentrist ‘model’ goes, there are significant problems:

    1. Many of them believe that the Earth is balanced at the universe’s center of mass and that the earth can be at rest if the proper forces outside the solar system are properly balanced. Newton said something to this effect, and theoretically one could construct such a universe. But it would only work if the major gravitational sources in the universe were indeed far away. Instead, there is a star (the sun) only 8 light-minutes away from earth that dominates the local gravitational environment. Gravitational force decreases with the square of the distance, so the individual effect of the distant stars and galaxies is weak and delocalized. They are not gravitational point sources, and thus are irrelevant compared to the sun.

      1. The sun is much more massive than the earth. Thus, the sun should not orbit the earth. One possible solution to get the sun to orbit the earth would be to add an offsetting mass on the opposite side of the earth to the sun. Such a counterbalance does not exist in near space, and the farther away it is, the more massive it must be (at a mere 1 light year, the counterbalancing mass would need to have the mass of over 4 billion suns—this would turn our justified criticisms of ‘dark matter’ as a fudge factor into rank hypocrisy). The sun lags the stars by about 4 minutes a day (they claim this is due to “the inertial drag of the planets”) and so must the ‘counterbalancing mass’. So that mass must not be at the margins of the universe, for then it would orbit at the same rate as the universe (and probably require more mass than the universe!). But if you add such a mass anywhere close to the earth, the gravitational explanation of the solar system ceases to exist because you could not explain the orbits of the other planets around the sun only.
      2. Since the stars and galaxies are so far away, and since their gravitational effects are so diffuse, maybe it’s not the earth but the entire solar system that is balanced at or near the center of the universe? In this case, the earth would be free to move about the sun. This, of course invalidates all the assumptions of geocentrism, but they have not explained why the earth is balanced at the center and the sun (which, on a universal scale, is only a fraction of a fraction of a percent from the center in their model) is not. And where is this balance point? Is it at the center of the earth? In that case, the crust would be free to rotate about the liquid core. Is it at the surface of the earth? At the edge of the atmosphere? Considering how large the universe is, what physical reason is there that the earth, the whole earth, and nothing but the earth is at an unmoving central position?
    2. If the earth is only balanced and not ‘fixed’ in place, what is to prevent the earth from moving? The solar system could be moving at millions of miles an hour toward the edge of the universe and we would not know it.
    3. Also, if one is attempting to claim the earth is balanced at the center of mass of a rotating universe, one runs into a very large problem: the earth should turn in synchrony with that universe. In the words Grøn & Eriksen, “…the interior inertial frames are dragged around rigidly with the same angular velocity as that of the shell.”2 Take a neutrally-buoyant ball and place it in a round pool of water with a circular current going around it. What’s going to happen? The current will cause drag and the ball will eventually spin at the same rate as the current. Trying to escape this aspect of their own model, strangely, one prominent geocentrist thinks the torque caused by the rotating heavens at the poles and equator runs in opposite directions. Take another ball. Put it in a pool of still water. Spin the ball. Why would the fluid at the poles rotate in the direction of spin but the fluid at the equator flow in the opposite direction? Another attempt at an escape is to claim that anything outside the Schwarzschild radius (the distance from a massive object within which the attraction of gravity is so strong that not even light can escape) is irrelevant. But wait a minute! They reject all the physics—Einstein’s general relativity3—that is needed to calculate the Schwarzschild radius, so they cannot appeal to it here. And if they believe gravity travels at infinite speed, light should as well. Thus there would be no Schwarzschild radius, because this is inversely proportional to the square of light speed.4 Due to inertial frame dragging, in a geocentrist model all objects in the solar system should be turning with the inexorable pull of the universal gravitational field. But then local orbital motion would stop and the solar system would collapse into a single sun/earth/planet ball. So their attempts at a dynamic neo-Tychonian system devolves into the kinematic Tychonian “fixed earth” system once again. Clearly, it is not possible to explain the fixity of the earth with Newtonian forces.
    4. Another common aspect of their model is the belief that all the stars orbit at the same distance from earth. But most of them firmly defend parallax measurements. Yet, the fact that some stars have a detectable annual parallax wobble and other do not shows that stars are at different distances from earth! OK, we made an imperfect argument when we said parallax could not be accounted for in a geocentric universe, but only some believers in geocentrism believe the stars orbit the sun. That in itself is amazing, because that means the universe (in all its massiveness) does not rotate around what they believe is the center of mass of the universe (the earth). But if the universe orbits the sun, the sun is the center of mass—making them heliocentrists by definition! If not, there must be an offsetting mass that counteracts the sun and does not orbit in synchrony with the stars (see above). Also, once you have stars at different distances, one then has to explain why satellites at different heights above the earth’s surface orbit at different rates but stars at different distances do not.
    5. But think about this: a geostationary orbit can only be achieved above the earth’s equator, and the equator is tilted in respect to the rotation of the universe. If it is the universe that is “pulling upward on the geosynchronous satellite”, keeping it from falling back to earth, it cannot do so evenly throughout the year and thus the satellite could not sit still in reference to earth.
  7. We noticed several examples of cherry picking, the act of arbitrarily picking and choosing different explanations for the same phenomenon. We also called it “stamp collecting”, which made many people mad. But it’s clearly what they are doing. For example:

    1. Notice that Mercury does not have an equatorial bulge. Earth does, as does Jupiter. They believe, and adamantly defend, that the bulge on Jupiter is due to rotation, and the lack of a bulge on Mercury is due to a lack of rotation (Mercury rotates slowly, once every 59 earth days). But they then go on to say that the bulge on Earth is due to the universe rotating around the earth.
    2. Likewise, the Coriolis force on Jupiter is due to its rotation, but they believe the Coriolis force on Earth is due to the universe rotating around the Earth. Thus, they require multiple explanations of the same phenomena. In geokinetics, there is one explanation: both rotate.
  8. Sadly, they failed to engage some of our best arguments: The “long-period comets must come with warp drive” claim, the source of universal acceleration question, and the speed of the moon largely went unanswered. What is the point of having this debate when our best arguments are ignored? Actually, we anticipated that the defenders of geocentrism would either ignore, misunderstand, or misrepresent this section. They chose the former. Par for the course.
  9. Our “Oddly Wiggling Universe” section got a lot of attention. Point of fact: the rate of rotation of the earth changes over time. Sometimes the change is abrupt (e.g., after a strong earthquake), sometimes it is slow but reversible (due to various combinations of different orbital parameters interacting with the unequal mass distribution within the earth), and sometimes it is slow and irreversible (i.e., as a result of tidal friction from the moon):

    1. Things in the universe are only connected though gravity. They are not connected by anything stronger (hence, stellar objects can display local motion), or faster, than that. Since there is no reason to expect galaxies to change their orbital period in synchrony when they are not firmly held in place with respect to one another, it must be the earth that is changing. But even if they are fixed in place with respect to one another, nothing should be able to change the rate of rotation of something as massive as a spinning universe.
    2. The fact that the universe appears to change its rate of rotation when an earthquake occurs (sadly, this is yet another scientific datum many of them reject) indicates that it is the earth that is changing its rate of rotation, not all the other things in the universe. For some reason, one of the replies to our article went into a lengthy discussion of how earthquakes would slow down the rotation of the earth and that author back calculated to show unsustainable levels millions of years ago. The problem with this is 1) earthquakes don’t always slow the earth, 2) the moon also has a measurable and usually larger effect, and 3) we do not believe the earth is millions of years old.
    3. They criticized us, saying that the heliocentric system is easily knocked out of whack. No, the earth and other planets are large and massive objects and the dynamic forces keep them in nice, tight orbits. Is this sustainable for thousands of years? Yes. Millions? Quite likely. Billions? Maybe not. But so what? It only has to be stable from the beginning until today.
    4. Robert Sungenis argued that there is no evidence of any change in sidereal time. But the differences are so small as nobody would have noticed before we invented instruments accurate enough to measure them.
    5. Sungenis also argued, “Moreover, we would have seen the effects in the weather, the jet stream, biological rhythms, and just about anything that is dependent on the precision of a sidereal day.” No, these things are not dependent on rhythms being accurate to less than one part in one million.
  10. Problems with the length of the year and day

    1. Several wondered how the earth could maintain a precise annual orbital period in light of internal inertial forces, cosmic forces, and planetary perturbations. Our answer is simple: Newton. One triumph of Newton, a biblical creationist, was that his laws of motion and gravity (along with his co-invention, calculus) could straightforwardly explain in a dynamic model the kinematic three laws of planetary motion discovered by his fellow creationist, Kepler. There’s no magic here. The relevant factors are reasonable and measureable.
    2. Sungenis threw out this gem: “Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied.” He said the same thing when writing against another young-earth geokinetics supporter as well. The reader should note that the orbital period of Venus has not changed, only the length of the day (over a 16-year time frame, and assuming the first measurements were accurate). First, he is attempting a bait-and-switch to catch the unaware who might think he is talking about the orbital period. Second, most scientists think the thick cloud layer and massive storm systems are causing the rate of rotation to slow. If physical explanations can tell us why the length of a Venusian day can change, why is it impossible for the length of a day on earth to change? Actually, part of the known day-length variation of the earth is due to seasonally-changing wind patterns across the surface of the earth. This means that in a geocentric universe the slight, measurable variations in the rotation of the heavens must be correlated with seasonal wind patterns on earth. It is quite strange that the two would be related.
    3. The earth’s axial tilt changes over time, the eccentricity of its orbit changes over time, and the plane of its orbit tilts up and down over time. These are all cases of precession, and are easily explained by Newtonian physics. If the earth does not move, this means the entire universe is wobbling as it turns. And, since these changes are explainable based on the changing positions of Jupiter and Saturn (the main gravitational sources that matter here), the geocentrist has now to explain why the universe wobbles depending on the relative locations of the two largest planets near the center of that universe.
    4. commons.wikimedia.org Analemma
    5. There is one more thing to consider: the analemma. You may have seen a strange figure-eight shape on a globe or map? That represents the position of the sun at noon throughout the year. It is easy enough to explain why the height of the sun at noon changes, but why does it also appear slightly earlier and slightly later over the course of a year? The reason for this is that the earth moves through the heavens faster when it is closer to the sun. Thus, the sun appears later than it should during summer in the Northern Hemisphere and earlier than it should during the Northern Hemisphere winter. Also, the stars move through the heavens faster or slower depending on the season. We have known about this since Edmond Halley first noticed it in 1695. In the geokinetic model, it is easy to understand why this happens, and we have been able to explain why since 1609, when Kepler’s second law was published. But, as in so many other examples, there is no reason for this in the geocentric model. Oh, they’ll come up with a reason, post hoc, but it will be no more valid a reason than the way long-period comets find their amazing power of acceleration and deceleration. In this case, they are going to have to explain why the entire universe changes its rate of rotation over time based on the distance of the earth to the sun.
    6. There are other things that affect the length of a day. The moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular, and the geometry of the earth is not perfectly round. This affects the length of a day. The earth is also not uniform on the inside. Changes in the magnetic field have been linked to changes in the length of a day. This means that things are wobbling around deep inside the earth. In the geocentric universe, these wobblings affect the rate of rotation of the entire universe? Remember, our clocks are accurate enough to measure these changes, and Newtonian mechanics gives us a valid reason for them.
  11. Coriolis confusion:

    I coined the term ‘spatial Coriolis’ in that article and this seems to have caused confusion. I believe, however, that the confusion is intentional. The idea is simple enough. Objects leaving earth are starting with an inertial reference frame radically different from the one to which they are travelling. In a geocentric universe, space ships have to get to their destination, but they also have to accelerate to match the speed of their destination. We do not have the technology to accelerate objects to get to most places in the solar system in a geocentric universe. Rocket motors are simply unable to get things moving that fast. If ether causes drag, we would have to account for it in the amount of rocket fuel needed. No rocket scientist has ever had to factor into an equation of acceleration the dragging effects of ether, and we have sent things all over the solar system. And, if ether were causing drag, once a space probe was sent in a particular direction, it should gradually accelerate in the direction of universal movement. They do not.

So there you have it. If a person rejects a purely naturalistic origin of the universe, they still have to decide on how much science to accept. For us (strangely in common with leading evolutionists Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson), we draw the line between operational science (how things work) and historical science (what happened in the past). Since the universe was created by God at a specific time in the recent past, it would be folly to take present processes and extrapolate them back to infinity. This is essentially what the evolutionist does. When they do so, however, they run into innumerable problems (we documented many of them in our powerful book and documentary Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels).

Simply put, the universe resists such explanations because it was created. On the other hand, once that universe was set up by God, everything should work according to a set of laws, for the Universal Lawgiver would have created the universe commensurate with His divine attributes. His unchanging nature means we have a universe that can be understood through unchanging scientific law (and of course the occasional miracle, an addition to natural law). The geocentrist goes too far in rejecting sound scientific theory and data. In the end, they are left with a universe that cannot be explained scientifically. It is a mysterious universe that cannot be comprehended through direct observation and analysis, for what is true in one place cannot be true in another. Because of this, we want to encourage everyone to put on their thinking caps and realize that the geokinetic model is simply a better explanation of the facts. It satisfies multiple criteria as faithful science.

References and notes

  1. His attempted rebuttal can be found here, but we advise the reader to exercise caution as we cannot vouch for the accuracy of all material on this website, and we disagree with much of it, nor can we guarantee how long this blog post will remain there: gwwdvd.com/2016/05/05/critique-of-the-2015-cartersarfati-paper-titled-why-the-universe-does-not-revolve-around-the-earth-refuting-absolute-geocentrism. Return to text.
  2. Grøn, Ø, and Eriksen, E., Translational Inertial Dragging, General Relativity and Gravitation 21(2):105–124, 1989. Sourced from geocentricity.com. Return to text.
  3. Schwarzschild, K., Über das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einsteinschen Theorie, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, S. 189–196, 3 February 1916 [English: On the Gravitational Field of a Point-Mass, according to the Einsteinian Theory, Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences]. Return to text.
  4. Rs = 2GM/c². Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

Andre V.
Please read your previous posts and let us summarise : so far you explained that the Earth’s atmosphere is liquid and somehow is connected to spinning Earth which is absolutely preposterous assumption, then you implied that I do not know how the bodies which traverse heaven project on a plane however in your mind this translation supports heliocentrism, and now again you failed to answer my question as to how in the atmosphere spinning with supersonic speed of 1670 km/h, from West to East flight of birds, clouds and other objects is possible. Maybe you can discuss and answer an easy case, say a bunch of clouds moves from East to West at speed of 40 km/h
In my opinion just as Darwinists, you’re failing to support you fanatical and extra biblical belief in heliocentrism with results of concrete scientific research. For practical reason, say sailing, for millennia old Ptolemaic system was sufficient to calculate position of a ship, so was heliocentric model, so your desperate defence of heliocentrism is strange.
I mentioned Lense Thirring experiment because it implies that the whole sphere of the Universe can rotate about the centre of gravity in which the Earth stays motionless.
I can see that mention of Judgement Day was terrifying for you. Christians are not afraid of Judgement Day.
Robert Carter
Let the reader take note that I have given Andre three tries to respond sensibly and he has refused. The only reason I am posting this reply is for posterity, so that others can see the silliness.

First, it is called fluid dynamics. Andre, you should look it up sometime. The same formulae used to explain how a submarine cruises below the ocean's surface are used to explain how an airplane soars about the earth. All you have to do is account for the viscosity of the fluid, unless you are flying in a P-38, in which case you have to account for the compressibility of air, but that's another story. This has nothing to do with evolution, deep time, or geocentrism. If you reject this basic science you have nothing left to say.

For millennia, sailing had nothing to do with Ptolemaic astronomy. In fact, all one knew was one's latitude, based on the height of the the stars or sun, and this was independent of whether or not one believed the earth moved or was at rest (i.e. sailors kept using their sextants for centuries after they accepted geokinetics). Again, this is knowledge on the most basic level and the fact that you don't get it tells everyone reading that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

I do not even have to respond to the ad hominem attacks.

After all this has been said, the only thing I can leave you with is an appeal. You are an intelligent person and claim to be a child of God. Yet, you have been fed a load of untruths that are hard to get around because you have accepted them without critical assessment. Therefore dig! Spend time studying what the other side is saying. You understand your position, now figure out why people don't agree with it. So far you have shown zero understanding of the other side and all you have been able to do hurl insult and invective.
Wayne S.
I want to say that Dr. Carter and Dr. Sarfati have hit a home run on this topic! I have had some interaction with Christians who have tried to convince me of geocentrism. I would say that geocentrists often have the best intentions in terms of trying to hold to the inerrancy of the Bible. I can commend that, even though I disagree with them on the details. This issue is a lesson on how to approach Scripture properly and how to deal with scientific evidence. Also, I think it is worth noting that both the Ptolemaic and the Tychonian models were put forward before there was knowledge of the force of gravity. Also, Johannes Kepler worked with Tycho Brahe and had to be very familiar with Brahe's "Tychonian" model, but Kepler did not believe it.
Andre V.
My posts do not make sense to you because you believe that gas can be liquid or solid at the same time. My next question to you Robert is how clouds, birds and other flying things move in different directions in the fast moving atmosphere , which spins together with the Earth according to you, at incredible, greater than sound speed 1670 km /h from East to West.

Unfortunately for you Robert even so called secular science research confirms central position of the Earth in the Universe. Familiarise yourself with results of Cosmic Background Radiation research. The map of the CBR implies the Earth's central position. Astronomer Varshni investigated positions of the quasars and concluded that they are positioned on concentric spheres with Earth at the centre of those spheres. Scientists Lense and Thirring rotated large sphere and inside, in the centre of that sphere appeared real Coriolis forces which in the model you preach here are only fictitious.
Those only three well know examples. I am sure there is more.
The heliocentric position is accepted by astronomers, atheists and you Robert purely on philosophical basis (lets exclude simple ignoramuses because they have no idea what is going on) meaning they and you just do not want accept the central position of the Earth because such a position implies God's design as the Scripture says, and God's design implies all that goes with it, the Judgement Day included.
For your info, all that commotion with the position of the Earth started in last century when scientific experiment conducted by Michelson and Morley failed to show any movement of ether, or movement of the Earth in space.
I may add that when I speak of geocentrism I mean geocentrism according to the model of Tycho de Brache not Ptolemaic.
Referring to m
Robert Carter
First, your opening response is nonsense.

Second, I already answered the question about the atmosphere. Why do you not address my answer? Because you do not want to hear an answer!

Third, you are quoting Lense and Thirring? Do you then accept the Lense-Thirring relativistic correction to the precession of a rotating object near a large rotating mass? I didn't think so. How can you reject their work on the one hand and accept their work on the other hand? Plus, I believe you are misunderstanding their Coriolis-inside-a-spinning-hollow-sphere calculation. They did not rotate a large sphere anywhere but on paper.

You want to lecture me about CMB? Have you read CMI's articles on the subject? You know, the ones that would end your confusion between the galactocentric and geocentric ideas? (enter "galactocentric" in the search box on the top right of this page)

You keep using the word "heliocentric". A better word is "geokinetic". Nobody teaches that the sun is the center of the universe and, for those that believe the planets orbit the sun, the center of the sun is not even the center of the solar system. See the diagram of the barycenter in our first article against geocentrism and stop using incorrect phraseology. This shows that you may have memorized a list of factoids put out by the small cadre of geocentrists but have not read outside that little bubble of a worldview.

Saying I accept the geokinetic model purely on philosophical grounds is proof positive that either you did not read the articles or you read the articles but are refusing to deal with the arguments therein. Either way you are being deceitful. And then you dare to invoke Judgement Day?

Finally, you show that you have no grasp of the history of this subject by saying it all started with M&M. The argument goes back millennia and really heated up 500 years ago with Copernicus.

Kevin M.
One of the main problems with the heliocentric view is that according to Genesis the sun wasn't created until day four; thus I would like to know at what point exactly did God start rotating the earth and hurling it around the sun at over 100,000 km per hour? In addition, on day two God created the firmament and 2 days later created the sun in it. Note that the text does not say that God placed the earth in the midst of the firmament. Indeed, a straightforward reading of the text certainly implies that the earth is the center-piece and that the sun was an addition; Yet, a heliocentric solar system demands that the sun is the center-piece which implies that the earth is merely an addition; this is a huge philosophical problem that can not just be brushed aside. If one just reads the Holy Scriptures and does not consider the science at all, it is obvious that one would be a geocentrist. Thus, you must admit that science, rather than Scripture, is indeed driving your exegesis in this debate, and that geocentrists uphold the absolute inerrancy of Scripture to a degree even higher than you do. Since the debate is merely about science, which as you know is often falsified, why can you not admit that a geocentric universe is indeed a possibility?
Robert Carter
There are too many things to say here. First, see my reply to the comment from Tim H. It should be only two comments above this one. Start with the earth, immovable if you like, then add the sun. The earth and sun will instantly start dancing their gravitational dance. All we need is the sun to be initially moving (only a little) and the earth's orbit about the sun will be instantly established. Yup, the earth came first. The sun was an addition. But the sun is so much more massive than the earth that the earth instantly started to orbit the sun, not v.v. If you just read an introductory textbook to non-telescope astronomy you would probably conclude the author believed the earth is at rest, but you would be wrong.

The geocentrists do not uphold the absolute inerrancy of Scripture higher than we do. Instead, they hold up a false dichotomy where words are taken out of context and are rendered meaningless. The Bible also says God is an "all consuming fire" and that certain people are like signets on God's right hand. Which is it? How can "fire" have a "hand"? Instead, both are poetic expressions that describe some aspect of God in a non-physical, non-literal sense.

And when did we say the geocentric universe is not a possibility? I spent quite some time describing how such a universe could be possible (you need a mass to counterbalance the gravitational effects of the sun). The problem you have is that this universe is impossible given what we know about the orbits of the other planets. There is no alter-sun. Thus, the geocentric model must be wrong on these observational grounds alone. It is not impossible in general, but it is excluded by the geometry of our own solar system.
Andre V.
Dear Robert

I can see that you science is based on the genius of Einsteinian clock paradox in which the clock can move at slow rate and fast rate at the same time so you can believe that gaseous atmosphere has properties of a liquid and rigid body at the same time !
Next time you fly form, say Sydney to Hong Kong for instance, sit close to the monitor which shows plane's flight and try to apply your Cabalistic science to what you see. And you will see the plane flight path, more or less straight line or vector directed North.
Then forget about genius Einstein ,use your brain ,and think that according to your science the plane must be subject to some miraculous forces, (must be Einsteinian forces I think), which hold the plane in the East - West position , but yet allow the plane to move Northwards.

I may add referring to previous posts, for all those who analyse the Scripture based on Hebrew words. Hebrew as we know today formed during the times of Herod the Great.
So Moses would certainly not have written the Bible in today's Hebrew.

Robert Carter
Andre, you make absolutely no sense in anything you say. Not only do you not know how the position of objects traversing the earth's surface are projected onto a flat screen but you know nothing of the history of the Hebrew language. Think of the peril of your hypothesis. If later editors modified Moses words, they could easily have introduced their own pet theories into the Bible! This would mean your geocentrism is an artifact of lying people.
Tim H.
Excellent article on an important topic. But there are 5 issues that seem to make absolute geocentrism valid that don’t seemed to be well addressed by CMI: 1) The implications of all three Michelson experiments (1881, 1887, 1925) & the Sagnac experiment. 2) Einstein’s many quotes saying the geocentric model is a valid option but chose to disregard it on philosophical grounds and created Relativity to get around it. 3) Christians that promote Relativity expect us to believe counter-intuitive things like matter contracting, mass increasing, time slowing and time-travel, all because something moves faster. If time travel is possible how would that affect scriptures like “It’s appointed that men die once, then comes judgment”? 4) Joshua’s long day, without appealing to phenomenological language (which is an opinion, not a proof; and the burden of proof is always on the expositor seeking to interpret a bible text as non-literal). 5) Day 3 before Sun/Moon/Stars: a) No biblical evidence Earth began to move, b) God’s Plan-A to live on Earth with Man would make Earth’s centrality fitting; c) The impact an Earth starting to move on Day 4 might have on all plant life.

It might be helpful to clarify if your responses are only to Dr. Sungenis’ articles, or if they’re in response to his 3-volume book (Galileo Was Wrong) as a whole, since a number of points you question are well covered in his books.

And finally, I think it would be beneficial if both sides were to acknowledge more points on which you agree; otherwise we are left with impression that everything the other side says is wrong. It’s very important for us readers to know more facts that are agreed-upon so as to better understand the real points of difference.
Robert Carter
You are being disingenuous. If this is an "excellent article", how can that which we are arguing against be "valid"? How can anyone take what you say after this seriously when you have an illogical starting point?

1) Did you read the first article on this topic where addressed the MM experiments? They were a "Type II" or "Type B" experiment with equivocal results.

2) No, but geocentrists accuse Einstein of doing this. He did not leave behind "many quotes" to that effect. It would be better to do your own homework than to parrot what you have heard from others. It is even worse if you are misquoting your own side.

3) Christians that promote relativity expect you to accept valid experimental data, and nearly all of the data we presented were in Newtonian terms. If you accept geocentrism you have to jettison not just Einstein but Newton's laws of motion as well! And why did you add in "time travel"? Everybody at CMI would say this is not even part of the discussion.

4) Have you considered the fact that the moon had to stand still in both models of Joshua's Long Day? This is also true of the sun, for it is also in motion in the geokinetic model.

5) Do you not think God could balance the relative forces such that the things on earth did not take a whack when the earth "started" to move? Or is this impossible for Him? Actually, if the sun suddenly appeared about 93 million miles from the earth, every point on earth would feel the gravitational pull essentially simultaneously 8 minutes later. Also, the pull would be nearly identical at all points because there is only a fraction of a percent difference in the distance of those points to the sun. Thus, the earth would instantly begin to orbit with no noticeable sudden acceleration. This is awesome! Thank you for helping me see that. I will be sure to counter with this the next time someone tries that argument on me.
Greg H.
Which verse in Genesis indicates when the Earth's 24 hour rotation commenced? How about its 365 day orbit of the sun? Or was the Earth created rotating and orbiting a sun that had not been set in place yet?

There is a lot of Scripture that implies it is the sun and moon in motion, not the Earth. Why would God use that type of referencing since he knew we would reach a point where we'd be able to determine it was the Earth moving all the time? Would He not think that could become a problem. His Word seeming to say the Earth is at rest while science would determine the opposite to be true?

Or perhaps He told it like it was and man decided to use human reasoning to construct a mathematical equation to undermine the plain reading of the text? Even when every scientific experiments to measure the Earth's motion has failed to measure any movement other than the diurnal motion of the Earth. Is there sufficient reason in the theory of general relativity to abandon the literal meaning of the text?
Robert Carter
Genesis does not tell us that a day is 24-hours long. Nor does Scripture give us the length of a year. And, no, the earth could not have been orbiting a star that had not yet been created, but when that star WAS created, God would have had to factor the gravitational equations into the timing and placement of it. Do you think this is impossible for God? If not, then you must stop using such a poor argument.

There is a lot of phenomenological language in scripture that could mean multiple different things. We use such language devices every day. Why would God use that type of referencing? The same reason we use it. His word says the earth is at rest? From the perspective of anyone at any place on earth, it is! However, once you consider the earth in its entirety, you realize the vast amount of evidence for its movement. Did God not realize it would be a problem? Yes, I am certain that he knew how people would struggle with it in the 21st Century. But so what? There are many passages in the Bible that we struggle with!

Had you read our article(s), you would have seen that this is not about an "equation". You could make an equation that describes the motion from either perspective. No, it is about physical forces. Forces that cannot be accounted for in a geostationary system.

You made two other mistakes:

1. "Diurnal motion"?! If you believe the earth rotates then all of your evidence for earth being unmoved evaporates. We explained this in our first article.

2. "General relativity"?! Since the geokinetic model was developed centuries before Einstein, this has nothing to do with relativity.

Is there sufficient reason to abandon the literal meaning of the text? No! There is, however, reason to reject a literalistic reading of the text. When the relevant passages are put into their proper historical and grammatical contexts, it can be easily seen that the Bible is neutral on the issue. Could they mean the earth does not move? Yes. Could they be poetic expressions that convey nothing about the movement, or lack thereof, of the earth? Yes. Could these be examples of simple language conventions, like the ones we use every day to describe the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies from our vantage point on the surface of our globe? Also yes.

The Bible is not in conflict with operational science. Geocentrism, however, is.
Robert B.
That a significant portion of the body of Christ would embrace error is a depressing and seemingly growing phenomenon. CMI's central campaign to uphold the Creation account as written, doesn't seem to be gaining ground the way one would expect since science and Bible truth prove CMI correct in its stance on creation.

Yet we saw how institutions like universities, that were originally founded on the Bible, became bulwarks against it. Even CMI is showing tiny encroachments of error. And I can see nowadays that there is one issue after another where even the majority positions within the body of Christ is in error and clearly counter to the Bible. The stampede towards error is, if anything gaining momentum.

It gives me pause. Am I too focused on the "correct" interpretation of everything I wonder? There are about a dozen popularly held errors in Christianity that the correction of, I champion to little effect.

Clearly, the decades long move of God experienced by the persecuted churches in China and extreme places like North Korea tell me that having the most accurate doctrine is not the be all end all of the Kingdom that I might think.. Without copies of the Bible, various heresies are rampant, but there is no denying the genuineness of those Christians. Indeed their testimonies convict me of being only a nominal Christian.

Do we need to see extreme persecution within our own culture before we see a wave of folks accepting the gospel? Is the growth of error setting the stage for such a day?

I'm torn here and it affects my charitable giving and where I direct my energies. Certainly, I've learned that the conservative political movement is a write-off; perhaps I am to adopt the same perspective on the importance of YEC as the basis for a Christian worldview.
Robert Carter
Robert, this is no time to give in! I am going to fight until I can fight no more. It is not a matter of winning or losing; it is about doing everything we can while we still have breath in our lungs. Yes, people believe all sorts of crazy things and sometimes you just want to shake your head and ask yourself if it is all worth it. But the battle is already won and so we are here only until the Captain returns. However, if you could only see the testimonies that are sent to us on a near-daily basis! I know the work of CMI is touching people's lives. I know this for a fact. I also know that the people here work sacrificially because they also know that our work is not in vain. This is a matter of preaching the truth. If the world does not want to hear, so be it. But what if there is just one little lamb wandering in the dark and looking for a little light to shine on their path?
Andre V.
Dear creationist scientists.
Put it very simply : if the Earth spins at 1670 km/h only at equator mind you , which is faster than the speed of sound, together with the spinning Earth her gaseous atmosphere must spin at this incredible speed. This speed must decrease of course, when you came closer to poles.
You have to assume and believe that , otherwise your position of spinning Earth is untenable. I hope you will understand this simple fact.
Read please "The Manufacture and sale of St Einstein " by Christopher Bjerknes. It is a thick book of some 2800 pages but I am sure it will help you understand how the Cabalistic monsters like black holes came to astronomy and physics and your skewed gospel here.
Kind regards
Andre Vance
Robert Carter
Since the atmosphere is dynamically coupled to the surface of the earth (I suppose you are aware of this thing called "friction"?) the atmosphere moves along with the earth as it spins. Yet, it is not perfectly coupled because the atmosphere is in every sense a liquid. We can see the effects of the spinning earth on global air currents (and oceanic currents, but that is a different question), trade winds, polar vortices, ad infinitum. Your argument fails in every respect.
Franklin G.
Again I find it fascinating that you so easily dismiss the Word in order to argue for the “sciences” of the world. In your original article, you dismiss many scriptures in the Word as “phenomenological language” and totally change the account of Joshua’s long day into something that fits your narrative rather than what the Bible actually says! In fact, the entire original article could be what Tesla described; “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” It is an astronomical and worldly argument and you have compromised the Word for world. Again, I implore you to take pause in your absolute defense of these “sciences” and especially be weary of “proof” that comes from photographs. Have you ever even considered how improbable it is to have a stationary satellite, over a million miles away, shoot images in the same spot for over a year, send them back a million miles, and only capture the moon passing by once? How is that even possible in a galaxy supposingly moving at 515,000 miles an hour? Just because someone presents a picture does not make it real. Hollywood creates fake worlds that look real all the time. Yet these images are produced and no one questions the authenticity and reality of them, they are just taken by “faith.” The wisdom of the world is foolishness, especially when it is rooted in a worldview that denies the existence of God. Also, how do you reconcile that the Earth was created before the sun, moon, and stars? Was it after they were created that it started moving and then moved to an insignificant part of an "infinite" universe? That is the worldview of satan, not God. Take heed by brother.
Robert Carter
Readers take note. Phenomenological language is necessary for communication. We use it every day. The Bible used it often. The question, then, is where is it used?

And, contrary to the claims being made here, we can build a dynamic model for the universe using very few equations. These simple Newtonian equations can explain everything we see until you get to the level of relativistic speeds [or subatomic particles]. After that, Einstein comes in, but even those formulae are not that difficult. Neither are they numerous. As we made clear, the geocentric model is the one that is forced to multiply explanations.

We also discussed the Lagrangian points, how they were discovered, and how they work. The fact that we were able to put a satellite there is an amazing fulfillment of Newtonian predictions. As far as 'only capturing the moon passing by once', he has not done his homework.

Note also that relative movement in the local environment, as the local environment co-rotates about the galaxy, is easy to explain in Newtonian terms.

Can people fake photos? Absolutely! They can also fake data and/or make bad arguments. So why would we trust geocentrists? Stay tuned for our upcoming article explaining why the earth is not flat (that was NOT meant as an insult, there really is an upcoming article).

How do I reconcile the order of the events during creation week? Scientific laws cannot apply at all points during fiat creation. Period. Both of us believe this. Was the earth moving before the stars and planets were created? How would anyone know? But, once those gravitational bodies are in place, the earth will certainly move in relation to them.

Finally, I would never accuse a fellow Christian of holding to the worldview of Satan, and I can assure the readers that indeed I took great heed when preparing this article.
Kenneth D.
The Hebrew word “mowt” (1 Cor. 16:30, Ps 96:10, Ps. 93:1) that is used to say the earth shall not be “moved” has as one of its definitions in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary as “to be out of course.” ie Off kilter, doesn’t behave as it should. It seems apparent (to me) that the usage of the word in these verses reinforces Gen. 8:22, where God says that while the earth remaineth, the seasons will continue, day and night will continue, the earth is not going to suddenly stop acting this way. It will “stay the course” in its behavior. This is perfectly consistent with saying it will continue to orbit the sun, and continue to rotate, thereby yielding the conditions of Gen. 8:22. To imply that this word means the earth will not change its physical location with respect to the rest of the universe makes nonsense of all the verses stating a righteous man will also not be “moved.” (Ps 15:5, 16:8, 30:6, 55:22, 112:6) Do righteous men never leave the same physical spot on the earth? Of course they move around physically, this word is not referring to their physical motion, its referring to their righteous walk and response to adversity. Its the same with the earth, referring to its behavior (seasons, day/night), not its physical location. Properly defining the word leaves no conflict with a rotating, orbiting earth. It will stay the course, it will not be moved, it will continue as God says in Genesis 8. Btw, great articles. Keep up the good work.
Robert Carter
Excellent points. See also our discussion on Phenomenological Language in the original article.
Carlos S.
Christian Catholics are taught that the Papal infallibility takes in under certain situations. We also learn from our church fathers, which all Christian denominations have in common, that all of them have believed in a young creation. And as for the "most recent papal pronouncements" or "the pope on evolution" link, I guess the following would turn things around, when he said the following most recently this year on May 20th during a Mass:
“Jesus reminds us of the fullness of creation’s harmony: ‘From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female’”….” Jesus responds with the overwhelming truth, the blunt truth — this is the truth! — of fullness, always”, noted the Pope. After all, “Jesus never negotiates the truth”.
That would be a most recent Papal pronouncement; however my point is that that the Pope is not an absolute sinful man who will never make a mistake in every place and in every situation during his life.
I am a Christian Catholic, and as for the geocentrism theory, I can go just as far as recognizing that movement is a reality, but I myself doubt and distrust in any type of geocentrism theory, and I have a perception that most people doubt it as well.
I think we should limit our focus of attention to the evolution errors.
Keep on with the good contributions of your ministry. God bless!!
Robert Carter
Francis has given conflicting statements on the subject, but it is wishful thinking to believe he is teaching biblical creation with what you have quoted. We understand how you feel as we have seen this happen in multiple Protestant denominations as well. Please see the similar but longer message from T.M. and our response above.
Steve S.
I was talking with a person who believes in the Tychonic model, and he says rockets don't work in space due to no atmosphere. I'm not sure how common that is among them, but he appeals to a worldwide conspiracy that everything is faked.

Considering the two contrasting worldviews of scientists: evolved or designed, there's no way they would work together to deceive everyone, especially not Christians who don't want to lie of course. The same thing with aliens being covered up is ridiculous as it would be a huge proof for their worldview. And in the end if the geocentric view was correct, evolutionists would accept that observational view but still come up with an origin story devoid of God.
Robert Carter

As far as rockets not working outside the atmosphere, this could not be more false. True, there is no oxygen in space, but take the Space Shuttle. The fuel in the external SRBs had an oxidant mixed in. Thus the fuel would burn even at very high altitudes. The hydrogen motors worked because the shuttle carried it's own oxygen supply. There are other motors that do not need to burn anything. Ionic thrusters work because they shoot atoms that have been heated up by an electric current out one end, thus pushing the ship in the other direction (per Newton's Third Law).

You know, your friend's comment raises an interesting problem. We as Christians need to be acute. We need to understand the issues. We need to understand basic science, history, etc. It does nobody any good to make false scientific claims. Let me encourage the readership that you can make a better case for the truthfulness of the Bible if you engage your minds in the most critical way.

And although appeals to conspiracy theory are very common, they are generally misplaced. We know that we are battling against "principalities and powers in the heavenly realms" (Eph 6:12), yet we also know that God himself is not a deceiver. Satan may control some of the seats of power in this world, but he did not create the world. The universe behaves the way it does because it came straight out of the mind of God. Our God is constant. He is not fickle. It is no surprise that the ultimate Lawgiver created a universe that operates according to Law. It is because of this, and only because of this, that we can trust what we see.
Jack L.
I have to go by the character of GOD. We see the Sun rise and set. We see the stars move. Are you telling me what's really happening is the Earth is moving instead?

This is not in the character of the Lord, who would not fool us in this way.
Robert Carter
Yes, this is exactly what we are saying, and, no, it does not make God out to be a liar.

Let's assume you believe the moon goes around the earth. If you travel out to the moon and park yourself in a lunar orbit (If you think that is not possible, then at least put yourself in a very fast space ship that can circle the moon). Now take a theoretical video of the earth rising above the lunar landscape. You would call it 'earthrise'. Ditto if you captured a 'sunrise'. Not only would you not be lying, but everybody on earth would understand what you were talking about. The astronauts who captured photos of the earth rising and the sun rising as the circled the moon were not trying to deceive anyone. This is also true of the 220 astronauts who have spent time on the International Space Station and who have each experienced multiple sunrises every day. Same goes for the use of similar terms in the Bible.

There is a place where both the Bible and the universe make sense and work together. Geocentrism creates a make-believe universe and only gives a token understanding of how words are used in everyday communication. We implore you to think through these things!
Doug L.
I do remain astounded at the inability of some people to properly understand poetic biblical passages such as 1 Chron 16:30, and Psalm 104:5. Oh well. 'Nuff said.
Robert Carter
The interested reader will want to see how we explained passages like these in our first article against geocentrism, under the subheading Phenomenological Language (Why the Universe Does not Revolve Around the Earth).
Edward P.
The Discovr satellite takes photos of the earth every day, and ought to dispel any idea one may have of a geocentric earth. The daily pictures themselves won't convince you, but the set when the moon orbits the earth can only come from a heliocentric solar system. I was able to make a simple recreation of the sun moon earth and satellite camera with my computer modeling and animation program and it lined up perfectly with the satellite pictures of the moon orbiting the earth and the earth orbiting the sun.
Robert Carter
Interested readers can perform a simple Internet search for the NOAA satellite Discovr. It is sitting at Lagrange point L1 (see our first article Why the Universe Does Not Revolve Around the Earth for more information) about 1 million miles from earth and takes a high-res image of the sunlit side of the earth every hour. Thank you, Edward. We forgot to include this most excellent example. Note, however, that the geometry of the Discovr orbit does not preclude geocentrism, but the physics does.
T. M.
I write as one who has enormous respect for CMI and I owe CMI for all CMI’s publications have taught me. Therefore it is painful when I read CMI articles involving scientific disputes with Catholics in which CMI appears not to understand nuances within Catholicism and those misunderstandings are inserted into the polemics almost as a jibe at Catholics. Speaking as a young earth, fiat creationist Roman Catholic, I say the response was well-done but was marred by the irrelevant reference to Pope Francis' uninformed opinions about creation and evolution, “The Pope and Evolution.” It is puzzling, I realize, for non-Catholics to accept that well-instructed Catholics know the difference between a Pope giving his opinion and a Pope publishing a document which by its internal content is understood to be a teaching to be held as true by the world-wide Catholic Church. The pronouncements of Popes during an interview on an airplane or when giving an address to a group of pilgrims or to an ad hoc body, such as the Pontifical Academy of Science, have never been seen as occasions when they are presenting anything to which Catholics are expected to make an ascent of faith. All papal pronouncements in the latter category, that is, occasions in which the Pope is exercising his authority as supreme teacher have pointed out that evolution is an error contrary to the Catholic religion. In 1884 Pope Leo XIII issued such a teaching in which he condemned Naturalism as a doctrine placing nature and human reason above the supernatural order, including God and His laws. In that document, Humanum Genus, he named 9 previous Popes who, beginning in 1738, warned against the doctrine of the Naturalists. Closer to our own time (1950) we have the last formal papal teaching regarding evolution, the encyclical Humani Generis. Many dissidents within the Catholic Church (clerical and lay) have made that probably the most misrepresented document in Catholicism. They claim that in that document Pope Pius XII authorized Catholics to believe in evolution and by repeating that over and over they have convinced most Catholics that they can. Actually, the English translation of the Latin title of Pius XII’s document is The Human Race: Some False Opinions Which Threaten To Undermine Catholic Doctrine. Pius XII identified evolution as the false opinion in the 5th paragraph of the encyclical:

5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

In paragraphs 40-42 the Pope, as a morally binding directive, warned Catholic authorities to “take care that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful.” It is because of the disobedience of those authorities that the popular misunderstanding of Catholic teaching regarding evolution is so prevalent. Pope Francis is a Jesuit, a Catholic order of dissident priests, which has been in the forefront of evolution promotion at least since their member, Teilhard de Chardin, gained fame for his part in what was the greatest paleontological discovery of all time, namely, the Piltdown Man, that was proved to be a fake that fooled the scientific consensus for 40 years. Traditional Catholics world-wide are “pulling out their hair” over many of the Jesuit Pope’s heterodox opinions contrary to unchangeable Catholic doctrine. Please CMI, ignore him.
Robert Carter
Please note that surrounding our brief comment was the phrase "we do not want to be gadflies" and "to be fair". We understand the difference between the Pope speaking in general and the Pope speaking 'ex cathedra'. And, you are correct that no official Catholic statement has been made that directly contradicts the official position. However, you would be hard pressed to find a biblical creationist among the leadership of the Catholic church (they do exist, but in the minority) and acceptance of evolution is the norm among its members (again, on average). How long will it be before 'official' doctrinal changes on the view of creation are made? It really was not unfair of us to say things the way we did, but your comments were appropriate, except for the fact that it is impossible to ignore Francis since he is the leader! Thank you for the history lesson. I think Protestants in general will be encouraged by the fact that creation, even if downplayed or ignored by many, is the official Church position.
David M.
Robert, this is the second article you've published on the subject, that I've seen. The first one, as with this one, you mention that Dr. Bouw is the most vocal geocentrist. You clearly know who Bouw is, but you also clearly have never read anything he wrote, nor counter any of the real arguments. I gave you fair warning on the last article and offered to send you a free copy of Geocentricity: Christianity in the Woodshed, published less than year before your last article and authored by Gerardus D. Bouw, PhD (Astronomy). Now I can only assume you write this hit piece with the knowledge of what it is. The previous article seemed halfway genuine, but sir, this article is just 100% strawmen. The leading graphic, from wikipedia, was a dead give away, but I thought to myself, maybe it'll get better. I was sorely disappointed.
Robert Carter
Concerning the graphic, we chose a generic representation that was free of copyright restrictions. We are not just addressing the ideas of Bouw, and/or Sungenis, but multiple other people as well while at the same time addressing historic geocentrism. So the graphic is warranted. As far as countering the "real" arguments, first we are constrained to write at a level appropriate for most of our readers. But, since science is all about falsification, by focusing on the areas where geocentrism fails, the argument proceeds much faster. There is no reason to talk about observational arguments in favor of geocentrism or to go into great depth about what others have written in favor of it. And, no please do not send us a copy of the book. We receive a package from a wealthy geocentrism supporter every year that is full of books and pamphlets (actually, I have not seen one in a couple of years). Finally, if this is "100% strawman", it should be easy to answer our scientific "strawman" challenges. We note, however, that you made no attempt to do so (not that this comment venue would be sufficient for lengthy discussions).
Chuck R.
Not being an expert, I have read where observation seems to show that we are at or very close to the center of the whole universe, which makes me wonder if perhaps the Sun is at center, also significant from a theological standpoint (Son).
Robert Carter
You are referring to the galactocentric cosmology ideas of Dr. John Hartnett. According to his calculations, the sun is not the center. Rather, the solar system in somewhere near the center in that model. Sadly, setting the sun as the center does not solve many of the physical challenges the geocentrists have because the sun cannot be fixed in place with gravity alone.
Franklin G.
It is always interesting that people who reject geocentrism say that a person who believes it does not "understand basic science." This is just not true and very dismissive. Sungenis and his colleagues, prove over and over that they do understand "science." The fact that a creation publication would claim that the bible is literal in the 6 days of creation, dragons, giants, etc... in the word, yet would reject the same word that claims the earth is not moving is baffling. Maybe one should consider that the Word is the authority and just because your "science" doesn't yet add up to it, does not discredit the truth. Let God be true, but every man a liar. Not that I necessarily agree with all aspects of the theory, but there are some aspects that a believer should take pause and understand that maybe their understanding of truth is not fully known and they should not dismiss a theory that better aligns with the scriptures.
Robert Carter
Yes, of course the major proponents of geocentrism understand basic science. They are not stupid. But they also misunderstand or misrepresent critical aspects of basic science, as we have pointed out. And, yes, there are certain aspects of the theory that should make anyone take pause...until they figure out why those aspects are either irrelevant or an incorrect understanding of either the Bible or the data. Have we dismissed something that better aligns with Scripture? We do not believe so, as we wrote in the original article.
Jeremy S.
Oh dear! Being a staunch believer in geocentricism, I find this demeaning quote strangely familiar: 'The geocentrist goes too far in rejecting sound scientific theory and data. In the end, they are left with a universe that cannot be explained scientifically. It is a mysterious universe that cannot be comprehended through direct observation and analysis, for what is true in one place cannot be true in another. Because of this, we want to encourage everyone to put on their thinking caps and realize that the geokinetic model is simply a better explanation of the facts. It satisfies multiple criteria as faithful science.'
Sorry, but this sounds like an argument put forward by Christian evolutionists still worshipping the god of oppositional 'science', falsely so-called.
Robert Carter
First of all, what we wrote is not demeaning. It is true. A geocentric universe cannot be explained scientifically. Second of all, all people have to make a decision about where they draw the line between faith in Scripture and faith in 'science'. For us, we draw the line between operational and historical science (see It's Not Science!). There is no reason to reject the former, and every reason to be suspicious of the latter.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.