<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Monday, May 03, 2010

Copernicus and his Revolution

Over the weekend, we had a theistic evolutionist wander into the comboxes at the GTY blog. As is typical in discussions between those who favor Darwinian evolution as the explanatory mechanism for the origin of life with those who believe our world is a special creation made by a creator, mythological legends of our Christian past will be invoked to demonstrate the inferiority of using the Bible in such arguments.

In this case, our theistic evolutionist appeals to the legend of Copernicus, whose work in developing a heliocentric model of the solar system was vehemently opposed by not only the Catholic Church, but also Martin Luther and the Protestants, because Copernicus's work contradicted the Bible. As the legend goes, eventually, those small-minded Christians had to begrudgingly admit Copernicus was right and the Bible was wrong, and thus, they were forced to scramble about for a "biblical" answer to the ever crushing evidence of the scientific facts.

There is much ignorance concerning Copernicus and the so-called "Revolution" he created, and his work that supposedly shaped our thinking in "scientific" matters is highly exaggerated. and oft abused. Historian, Rodney Stark, provides the proper historical perspective concerning Copernicus in his book, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts, and the End of Slavery.


All discussions of the "Scientific Revolution" begin with Copernicus, almost as if his use of the word Revolutions in the title of his famous work had referred to drastic social changes rather than to celestial orbits. According to popular accounts, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) was an obscure Catholic canon in far-off Poland, an isolated genius who somehow "discovered" that, contrary to what everyone had always believed, the earth revolves around the sun... the Church made unrelenting efforts to suppress these views, and it was only through the more enlightened auspices of Protestantism that the "truth" survived.

There is far more fiction than fact in this account. First of all, Copernicus received a superb education. He took his first degree at Cracow, one of the greatest universities of that time, and then spent another three and half years at the University of Bologna, possibly the best university in Europe. Next, he spent about four years at the University of Padua, interrupted by a brief visit to the University of Ferrara, where he received the degree of doctor of canon law. Second, the notion that the earth circles the sun did not come to him out of the blue; rather, Copernicus was
taught the essential fundamentals leading to the heliocentric model by his scholastic professors. That is, the heliocentric model was developed gradually by a succession then-famous (but now sadly neglected) Scholastic scientists over the previous two centuries, their conclusions about mechanics being so well formulated that "Copernicus could not improve upon them." For all the profundity of his contribution, Copernicus is best understood as having added the implicit next step. ...

What, then, did Copernicus contribute? Very little more than to propose a model of the solar system with the sun at the center, circled by the planets. Everything else included in
De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was wrong! What made the book more than merely a new concept was that Copernicus "expressed himself chiefly in mathematics, the native tongue of science." Thus he fully worked out the geometry of his system providing a method of calculating future positions--essential for setting the date of Easter, the solstices, and the like. Howeve, his system did not yield results more accurate than those produced by the earth-centered system created by Ptolemy in the second century, which guided Europe's celestial calculations ever since. The Copernican system was no improvement in that respect because he failed to recognize that the planetary orbits are ellipses, not circles. Here he may have been misled by having too much respect for Greek philosophy, which held that the motion of the heavenly bodies must be circular since that is the ideal shape. Consequently, like Ptolemy, Copernicus had to clutter his model with epicycles (loops) in the orbits to obtain reasonably accurate calculations -- he ended up with even more loops in his model than had Ptolemy. Indeed, Copernicus failed to progress beyond Ptolemy and the ancient Greeks in that he, too, postulated that the planets did not move through space as such but were encased in "huge rotating spheres" or shells that held them in place. Actually, according to Copernicus it was the spheres that rotated around the sun-- the "Celestial Spheres" in his book's title are not planets, and the circles in his drawings do not designate planetary orbits. Both represent solid spheres within which he thought the heavenly bodies are embedded. ...

One reason history has paid so little attention to the work that prepared the way for Copernicus is that he failed to acknowledge these debts in his famous book (while Kepler's book gave Copernicus lavish praise). This omission was in no way unusual; it simply was not typical in this era to give much credit to predecessors. ... But the more important reason Copernicus has been presented as a lone genius who revolutionized science is that it suited the ideological agenda of those who were (and remain) determined to impose notions concerning an "Enlightenment" and a "Renaissance" on Western history. [Stark: 135-136, 138-140].

Labels:

18 Comments:

Blogger Highland Host said...

Having taken a university course that dealt with the history of astronomy, I knew all this - but most people don't! Like much of science, it's reserved for the higher ranks. But the fact that Copernicus had to add epicycles to his model certainly made it less acceptable than Kepler's developed version.

The "Dark Ages" are of course an Enlightenment myth necessary to present the Enlightenment as what it is supposed to be. Never mind that a geocentric cosmos was an idea from the Greek philosphers! And it makes a lot of sense, after all, doesn't it LOOK like the earth is in the middle of everything? (Answer: Yes, because that's where we're standing right now! Unless you're picking up this signal somewhere out in space, of course...)

4:04 AM, May 04, 2010  
Blogger Diogenes said...

I know Chinese people who don't have a dog in this fight. Objectively, they can't stand any European art pre-14th. century. It's dirt to them.

Bunch of dark, miserable icons of a blobby, roundheaded virgin and child. Over and over and over, for 500 years. Trash.

The myth is that the "Dark Ages" are an Enlightenment myth, and were not really dark. This myth invented by conservative Christians to conceal the brilliance of the humanism of the Renaissance.

Walk into any museum-- any museum-- and compare dreary, dark tenth. century painting or sculpture with beautiful 17th. century painting or sculpture. No comparison. Not even close. Night and day. Any objective observer would admit this.

Conservative Christians are always telling me about how inaccurate *sniff* history is *sniff*. Oh, the brilliant Dark Ages! Then I ask them, what got invented then? They don't know. They never have an answer.

I'll answer: The gothic arch. Wheelbarrows. Horseshoes. Blobby-headed maddona icons. And Heironymous Bosch. That's it for 500 years.

Then Leonardo and Michaelangelo show up and put 'em all to shame.

No, conservative Christians don't know what got invented in 500 years, but they know historians lie to them! *sniff* The myth here is that "secular" historians are biased.

In this blog post we see no evidence whatsoever to back up that claim. Every science historian I know gives a lot of credit for heliocentrism to a lot of people, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Copernicus, etc.

As for geocentrism, the Greeks figures out the Earth was round; early Christians, influenced by Hebrew scriptures, said it was flat, and "Christian topography" at that time meant flat-earth topography. It took centuries for Christians to admit the Greeks were right about roundness.

1:41 PM, May 04, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Oh, the brilliant Dark Ages! Then I ask them, what got invented then? They don't know. They never have an answer.

D. You would do well to read that book then. Stark has nearly a 100 page chapter answering your claims. Oddly, the late Michael Crichton talks about the myth of the Dark Ages in his book "Timeline."

5:07 AM, May 05, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

As for geocentrism, the Greeks figures out the Earth was round; early Christians, influenced by Hebrew scriptures, said it was flat, and "Christian topography" at that time meant flat-earth topography. It took centuries for Christians to admit the Greeks were right about roundness.

And you gripe at me for not citing sources. What early Christian, influenced by the Hebrew scriptures taught a flat earth topography? Even wackypedia gets this one right. You would do yourself a favor to read Escavado's comment under This Post

5:15 AM, May 05, 2010  
Blogger Lynda O said...

D. 'As for geocentrism, the Greeks figures out the Earth was round; early Christians, influenced by Hebrew scriptures, said it was flat, and "Christian topography" at that time meant flat-earth topography. It took centuries for Christians to admit the Greeks were right about roundness.'

Again you only prove the point about myth versus the truth. That "flat earth" myth -- that the people of Columbus' time and earlier thought the world was flat -- started in the early 19th century, in the time of enlightenment and early Darwinism. No books prior to the early 19th century ever said that people had once thought the earth was flat -- because they didn't think so. Medieval people continued the belief from classic Greek culture, that the circle and sphere held symbolic spiritual significance in the idea of perfection. Dante's literature also reveals that understanding of round (not flat) objects. Map makers actually made and sold globes a generation before Columbus (such globes have been shown on TV documentaries).

The flat-earth idea was first introduced in a fictional context, with Washington Irving's 'History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus' (1828). In this account, flat-earth churchmen oppose Columbus, saying he would fall off the edge of the earth if he tried to sail west. After Darwin published his 'On the Origin of Species' in 1859, two of his followers presented this flat-earth myth as actual history, in books that upheld Darwin against those "ignorant Christians": John Draper's 'The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science' (1874), and Andrew Dickson White's 'A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom' (1896). Thus that myth has been perpetuated in school text books ever since.

5:55 AM, May 05, 2010  
Blogger Diogenes said...

Butler: "What early Christian, influenced by the Hebrew scriptures taught a flat earth topography? Even wackypedia gets this one right."

Specifically, Cosmas Indicopleustes, 6th. century author of "Christian Topography."

Lynda O: "Again you only prove the point about myth versus the truth. That "flat earth" myth -- that the people of Columbus' time and earlier thought the world was flat -- started in the early 19th century, in the time of enlightenment and early Darwinism."

I did not say that people of Columbus' time believed the earth was flat. Those were not my words.

I said "early Christians". To be specific, 1st-6th. century.

Obviously, scholars in Columbus' time knew the Earth was round. But Columbus' time is not that of "early Christians."

Lynda O:"Thus that myth has been perpetuated in school text books ever since."

Again, you're perpetuating the myth of biased textbooks.

When I was a kid, they told us (1970's), accurately, that scholars in Columbus' time knew the Earth was round. Here the myth you're pushing is that the myth has been perpetuated in school text books ever since.

Butler: "Oddly, the late Michael Crichton talks about the myth of the Dark Ages in his book "Timeline."

You're citing a science fiction book about time travel. And next, "State of Fear" to prove there's no global warming, and "Lord of the Rings" on hobbits/Homo floresiensis.

2:27 PM, May 05, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

D.
You cite one, obscure Alexandrian monk as your proof? Did you even bother to read his wackypedia entry:

"his idea that the earth is flat has been a small minority view in educated Western opinion since the third century BCE. Cosmas's view has never been influential even in religious circles; a near-contemporary Christian, John Philoponus, disagreed with him as did most Christian philosophers of the era. [emphasis mine]

You have to do better than that, bub. By the way, Crichton has lectured extensively on those subjects at Cal Tech, so he is much more than a sci-fi novelist. His "State of Fear" is heavily referenced.

2:54 PM, May 05, 2010  
Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

I wonder if Rodney Stark is a Christian?

I heard that he wasn't.

3:31 PM, May 05, 2010  
Blogger Highland Host said...

No-one is saying that science has not progressed - it obviously has. But the specific heliocentric model that was taught in the Middle Ages was created by the Greeks, BEFORE the "Dark Ages". What is more, I could point you to an obscure sect of the 17th century (which still existed into the 20th), the Muggletonians, who were geocentric and believed the whole universe was really very tiny. It would be unfair to claim all Christians of the period believed that. It's funny, though. The Muggletonians were unitarians, and believed that while God was earth as Jesus he left Moses and Elijah in charge of the universe. They were on the Mount to give him an update, you see...

2:06 AM, May 06, 2010  
Blogger Diogenes said...

"You cite one, obscure Alexandrian monk as your proof?"

Obscure to you maybe. Cosmas wrote the first important essay on a scientific subject ever written by a Christian.

The sentence from wikipedia that you cited, was referenced to... Jeffrey Burton Russell, who had religious motivations to ignore several flat-earth predecessors of Cosmas' in "Inventing the Flat Earth", and is as inaccurate as Andrew Dickson White.

Which of the church fathers believed earth was flat or round earth depended on their school of theology.

The Antiochan school had a very literal interpretation of scripture and were mostly flat-earthers. Also the Old Syrian Church.

Theophilus of Antioch, who was the first writer to use the word "Trinity", promoted the flat earth [Apologia ii.13,32].

Church father St. John Chrysostom believed the earth was flat and floated on the waters underneath as in Genesis.

Church father St. Methodius of Olympus was a flat earther.

Also Diodorus of Tarsus, of the Antiochan school [Dreyer; and here].

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Doctor of the church, believed the Earth was flat and floated on the waters of Genesis [Catechesis, ix., cited by J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Planetary Systems, p.211-2.] Ditto Severian, Bishop of Gebala [for more see Dreyer p.211-2].

Also doctor of the church, St. Athanasius of Alexandria believed the earth floats on the waters of Genesis.

Most infamous is Lactantius who promoted the flat Earth.

Latin fathers mostly believed the round earth, except the church father Tertullian, maybe. Robert Schadewald says Tertullian believed in the flat earth but I can't find a reference.

St. Augustine's writing on the subject is ambiguous and sounds agnostic to me.

And some other guys were flat earthers.

In contrast to the Antiochan & Old Syrian schools, the Greek fathers were used to allegorical interpretation, and were mostly round earthers.

But none after the 7th. century that I know of, except maybe the heresy trial of Vergilius (disputable.)

2:34 AM, May 06, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

D.
I knew you had in you.
The one thing I love about atheists, they are like pure gold when it comes to providing subjects for blogging I already have two articles in the pipe. Thanks, man.

5:46 AM, May 06, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

Diogenes: That was a pathetic argumentum ad hominem against Jeffrey Burton Russell. Might we question your motives and objectivity as well?

I have a copy of Russell's book and it is well-documented. The same cannot be said of Andrew Dickson White who had a bad habit of citing only secondary writers who shared his opinions. A source you use for some of your flat-earthers, Flat Earth - The Early Church, relies heavily on White, by the way.

Russell makes it perfectly clear that Cosmas, who was roundly attacked in his own time, had virtually no influence on medieval western thought. Russell even cites The History of Cartography by Harley and Woodward (the standard modern text of cartography) who wrote that Cosmas “was not thought worthy of mention by medieval commentators.”

Russell also shows that Lactantius’ beliefs were atypical of his time as well. The follies of Cosmas and Lactantius were ceased upon in the 19th century because they could be used as convenient symbols against the anti-Darwinists.

I don’t have time to go through every genuine and alleged flat-earther you list, but you have not made a case that the flat-earth was a dominant belief of the early church. The only thing falling flat around here is your clichéd atheopathology.

7:34 AM, May 06, 2010  
Blogger Diogenes said...

Hey kids! Can you find the logic error?

Escovado: "The only thing falling flat around here is your clichéd atheopathology."

Escovado: "That was a pathetic argumentum ad hominem "

You're a moral relativist, like most regenerates. Whether something is right or wrong depends on whether you do it to others, or they do it to you.

You have not pointed out a single inaccuracy, not one, in anything I wrote, except when you change my meaning.

You write "Russell makes it perfectly clear that Cosmas, who was roundly attacked in his own time, had virtually no influence on medieval western thought."

Who cares? My point was re: the early church authors, early, early, early, not medieval. How many times do I have to make that distinction? I did not claim Cosmas influenced medievalists, so you haven't pointed out any error in my post.

Escovado: "I have a copy of Russell's book and it is well-documented. The same cannot be said of Andrew Dickson White who had a bad habit of citing only secondary writers who shared his opinions."

The fact that White's book is lousy (it is) does not mean that Russell's is good. Russell is biased and fails to mention a lot of guys who were flat Earthers.

Furthermore, you can't criticize me re: an "ad hominem" attack when that's exactly the point of Russell's book, a big ad hominem attack. Here's Russell: "The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism...The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists."

News flash: a lot of people are still mad about Galileo.

If you defend Russell, then it's fair for me to employ the same technique: Russell is biased, has an agenda, which we can prove because his writing makes no logical sense.

Here's Russell's logic: "A few—at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise."

First, his logic makes no sense. He's comparing a count of flat earthers among the Church fathers, big shots, in the first three centuries--- a very small data set-- against all round earthers drawn from a huge population, 1,400 years of people from any conceivable occupation, artists, poets, drummers, anybody. He lumps together the early Christians and medievalists to dilute the statistically significant signal, and does not compare against educated pagans of the era. That's not comparing apples and oranges, it's grapes and giant pumpkins.

Second, his count of "early Christian fathers" is wrong, as I showed above.

Russell: "The point is that no educated person believed otherwise [than the round earth]."

Obviously wrong. Russell distorts the facts to fit his agenda.

"you have not made a case that the flat-earth was a dominant belief of the early church."

It was the dominant belief of the Antiochan and Old Syrian schools of theology. Not the Latin or Greek.

I did show Russell is hilariously biased and has an agenda. Of course, AD White is biased and has an agenda also. His book is indeed awful.

"I don’t have time to go through every genuine and alleged flat-earther you list"

Then I accept your surrender. Victory is mine!

Hey kids, how about if you do some work for a change, and find a single educated Greek or Roman pagan author in the 1st-4th. centuries who believed the Earth was flat? In science that's called a control group. One. Just one.

12:07 PM, May 06, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

find a single educated Greek or Roman pagan author in the 1st-4th. centuries who believed the Earth was flat? In science that's called a control group. One. Just one.

Anaximander

Democritus

Both of these philosophers lived around the time these other men were developing the concept of a round earth.

My point was re: the early church authors, early, early, early, not medieval.

I think we are well aware of your point. You seem to think, though, that the men you cite are somehow influential on developing Christian thought. Of the ones you mention, Chrysostom and Athanasius are the most well known, but in other areas of theology.

People considered "Church fathers" are a dime a dozen. There are a relatively small number we considered "pillars" or instrumental in shaping theology. Many of them believed lots of loopy things that are unscriptural. We recognize their good while passing over the bad. Antioch was also the hotbed for Arianism, and sided with heresy over biblical orthodoxy, for instance. With that they are to be faulted. However, they had a much better handle on the overall understanding of the Bible than the Alexandrians and others in North Africa, who tended to allow their hermeneutics to be dominated by Greek philosophical considerations. Hence the over reaction with those in Antioch by invoking hyper literalism with the biblical text when none was needed.

*INCONSISTENCY ALERT*

You initially stated:

As for geocentrism, the Greeks figures out the Earth was round; early Christians, influenced by Hebrew scriptures, said it was flat, and "Christian topography" at that time meant flat-earth topography. It took centuries for Christians to admit the Greeks were right about roundness.

In your last post in response to Escavado who wrote, "you have not made a case that the flat-earth was a dominant belief of the early church."

You stated,

It was the dominant belief of the Antiochan and Old Syrian schools of theology. Not the Latin or Greek.

Antioch represent one section of the larger whole. Even you admitted Christians in the other schools held to a round earth. So obviously, one segment of the group does not mean all Christians as you imply in your first comment. Moreover, you cite a select few obscure writers. I know you don't like them being described as obscure, but only two or three can seriously be considered influential.

So which is it: dominate belief of the church, or belief among one segment of the overall group?

Whether something is right or wrong depends on whether you do it to others, or they do it to you.

So I take then you are pro-life?

1:17 PM, May 06, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

Diogenes:

Let’s have a quick recap of events thus far…

Fred Butler: “What early Christian, influenced by the Hebrew scriptures taught a flat earth topography?”

Diogenes: “Specifically, Cosmas Indicopleustes, 6th. century author of "Christian Topography… I said "early Christians". To be specific, 1st-6th. century.”

Fred Butler: “You cite one, obscure Alexandrian monk as your proof?”

Diogenes: “Obscure to you maybe. Cosmas wrote the first important essay on a scientific subject ever written by a Christian.” [emphasis added]

So, Diogenes, in your own words, you held Cosmas up as “the first important essay on a scientific subject ever written by a Christian” from the time frame you specified, the “1st-6th. Century[s].”

Then, I related how Cosmas ‘had virtually no influence on medieval western thought’ and that, according to the standard modern text of cartography, “he was not thought worthy of mention by medieval commentators.” So, Cosmas, the best example you could come up with, was recognized as a crank in his own time.

So then, how do you respond now that your favorite Medieval Christian author has gone down in flames? Why, you change the subject and move the goal posts of course!

Diogenes: “Who cares? My point was re: the early church authors, early, early, early, not medieval. How many times do I have to make that distinction? I did not claim Cosmas influenced medievalists, so you haven't pointed out any error in my post.”

Give me an ever-loving break! If what you said was true that Cosmas produced “the first important essay on a scientific subject ever written by a Christian,” how could he have not influenced medievalists? Furthermore, you were the one who held up Cosmas as your example—not us. Now you start backpedaling by saying that he wasn’t early enough, so instead we have to go “early, early, early, not medieval.”

I love how you quote Russell out of context. Here is what he actually said:

“It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat…Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few--at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.” [source: The Myth of the Flat Earth]

Russell’s point was that the flat-earthers were the rare exception, not the rule.

Diogenes, it is obvious that you are only one here who “is hilariously biased and has an agenda.” I have better things to do than wasting my time with lame a Richard Dawkins wannabe.

2:14 PM, May 06, 2010  
Blogger Dan said...

The Catholic church did persecute Copernicus and he was correct about the sun being the center of the solar system. The Catholic church was incorrect treated Copernicus unethically and unrepentant (I think they recently admitted Copernicus was correct, but this was within something like the past 20 years).

Later science would eventually disprove about every concept of the natural world developed by not only the Catholic church, but all religions. Religion had no ideas what it was talking about then, just as it does now. Its just a group of people with no knowledge of anything in particular who want to control others. There is no intellectual property developed by religions. They don't "do" anything.

Science eventually defeated religion as a way of understanding the natural world, and became marginalized as a way of "explaining" things. What would the author like to propose, that religion has really been right on a lot of things? The article starts off by saying that everyone is ignorant about what really happened with Copernicus and the church and then changes the topic to how much of Copernicus's work was derivative. None of the people replying seem to have caught this, it may be because they are mostly religious. In fact most the comments don't seem to directly relate to the article but are tangential. Strange.

12:00 AM, January 08, 2011  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Dan writes:
The Catholic church did persecute Copernicus and he was correct about the sun being the center of the solar system.

Persecuted? That's a bit exaggerated don't you think? Like the way the American Atheists "persecute" Christmas and nativity scenes? I am gonna guess and say you are probably a young guy. Maybe college aged or there abouts? Before you begin a hobby as an atheist gadfly who leaves drive-by pot shots on various other blogs and to keep from embarrassing yourself too much, I would recommend actually getting Rodney Stark's book and reading the nearly 100 page chapter on science and Christianity.

continuing...
The Catholic church was incorrect treated Copernicus unethically and unrepentant (I think they recently admitted Copernicus was correct, but this was within something like the past 20 years).

Can you document that? Something a bit more substantial than wackypedia. The truth of the matter is as I noted in the citation: Copernicus learned his views of cosmology in the scholastic universities of Europe. He didn't dream them up independently, apart from the Bible and the RCC. "Scholasticism" was an academic movement in what society? The religious (Christian, specifically) Western society. How exactly did the RCC persecute scholastics in the university? Men who had written years before Copernicus did?

continuing
Science eventually defeated religion as a way of understanding the natural world, and became marginalized as a way of "explaining" things.

Not sure what you mean by this. "Science" is not a self-
authenticating, infallible authority. It requires an interpretive grid through which to operate. One's particular worldview generally tends to filter the conclusion he or she makes about the world with "science."

What would the author like to propose, that religion has really been right on a lot of things?

Actually, he does just that and again, this will only help you IF you get his book and consider his argumentation. Just some friendly advice.

The article starts off by saying that everyone is ignorant about what really happened with Copernicus and the church and then changes the topic to how much of Copernicus's work was derivative.

And that is relevant why exactly...? The "article" is selected citations from a much larger whole. You being an atheist, I figured you would pride yourself as a "free thinker" and "reasonable" person. This is why you need to educate yourself with the facts before you make more drive-by style comments that only serve to make you look like a mocking ignoramus.

4:26 PM, January 08, 2011  
Blogger Escovado said...

I love how these atheists troll the Internet resurrecting long-dead comment threads.

5:58 PM, January 08, 2011  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home