Anthropologist resigns in 'dating disaster'

A flamboyant anthropology professor, whose work had been cited as evidence Neanderthal man once lived in Northern Europe, has resigned after a German university panel ruled he fabricated data and plagiarized the works of his colleagues. Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a Frankfurt university panel ruled, lied about the age of human skulls, dating them tens of thousands of years old, even though they were much younger, reports Deutsche Welle. "The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years," the university said of the widely recognized expert in carbon data in a prepared statement.

Protsch's work first came under suspicion last year during a routine investigation of German prehistoric remains by two other anthropologists. "We had decided to subject many of these finds to modern techniques to check their authenticity so we sent them to Oxford [University] for testing," one of the researchers told The Sunday Telegraph. "It was a routine examination and in no way an attempt to discredit Prof. von Zieten." In their report, they called Protsch's 30 years of work a "dating disaster."

Among their findings was an age of only 3,300 years for the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found with unusually good teeth in Northern Germany, that Protsch dated to 21,300 years. Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Protsch dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750. The Herne anthropological museum, which owned the Paderborn skull, did its own tests following the unsettling results. "We had the skull cut open and it still smelt," said the museum's director. "We are naturally very disappointed."

Protsch, known for his love of Cuban cigars and Porsches, did not comment on the commission's findings, but in January he told the Frankfurter Neue Presse, "This was a court of inquisition. They don't have a single piece of hard evidence against me." The fallout from Protsch's false dating of northern European bone finds is only beginning.

Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory." "Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald. Frankfurt University's president, Rudolf Steinberg, apologized for the university's failure to curb Protsch's misconduct for decades. "A lot of people looked the other way," he said.

I'll stop you right there; Newton wasn't really a 'Bible-believing Christian'; he was a devout Unitarian who believed the Bible had been corrupted by Trinitarian heresies.

Furthermore, Newton et al made contributions to science and human knowledge precisely because they were able to set their religious convictions *aside* long enough to look and see the manner in which the Universe acts *naturally* regardless of religious dogma, instead of falling back on the fundamentalist creationism of the Dark Ages which simply declared, "all things happen because God wills them to" and considered that sufficient "explanation" in itself.

Additionally, Newton is an especially egregious example for the creationists to cling to, because over half of Newton's writings during his lifetime consisted of navel-gazing religious ramblings, which had no lasting value and certainly did not advance science or mathematics in any way. Imagine the additional benefits to the progress of mankind that would have resulted if Newton had dropped his "creationist" musings and spent *all* of his time exploring science itself? Newton's adherence to creationism wasted fully half of his genius.

Let's have a look at how dogmatic creationism actively stifled scientific progress, shall we? This example is from a few hundred years ago, but the parallels to the anti-science attitudes, objections, arguments, and activities of modern creationists should be entirely obvious:

Biblical dogma: "The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved." -Psalms 104:5
Scientist )Galileo): "The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned [by creationists] on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations.", "I accepted the Copernican position several years ago and discovered from thence the cause of many natural effects which are doubtless inexplicable by the current theories. [i.e., the new theory better matched and explained the observations - Ich.]" -- Galileo Galilei
Creationist rebuttal: "But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. [...] And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. [...] Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. [...] I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God."
-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, April 12, 1615 letter to Foscarini.
Papal condemnation/sentencing of Galileo: "Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] Likewise, you confessed that in several places the exposition of the said book is expressed in such a way that a reader could get the idea that the arguments given for the false side were effective enough to be capable of convincing, rather than being easy to refute. [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. [This includes torture - Ich.]
Under threat of torture, and mindful that the Church had already burned at the stake Giordano Bruno for the same "crime", Galileo publicly renounced his "false" doctrine that the Earth revolves around the Sun: "I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you [...] I wrote and printed a book in which I discussed this doctrine already condemned, and adduced arguments of great cogency in its favor [horrors! - Ich.], without presenting any solution of these [i.e., without reconciling it with the Church's interpretation of Scripture -- Ich.]; and for this cause I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves. [...] with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me"
-- Galileo's forced recantation, June 27, 1633
Despite this Inquisition-ordered renunciation of the truth, Galileo was held under house arrest by the Inquisition until the day he died, many years later on January 8, 1641...

Galileo was right -- the Church was wrong. Or as the famous explorer Ferdinand Magellan said, in reference to a clash between the trustworthiness of direct evidence over dogma, "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." (Ferdinand Magellan, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 461.)

How long does it take creationists to admit they were wrong about an obvious scientific truth? Galileo's banned book stating the "heresy" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", was finally taken off the Vatican's list of banned books in 1835 -- almost 200 years after Galileo was forced to denounce it.

How long before they finally stop fighting the "false heretical doctrine" of evolutionary biology?

I'll close with some various appropriate quotes from Galileo -- note how much they sound like what various evolutionists have been posting here on FreeRepublic:

"To command the professors of astronomy to confute their own observations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them not to see what they do see, and not to understand what they do understand, and to find what they do not discover."
"And who can doubt that it will lead to the worst disorders when minds created free by God are compelled to submit slavishly to an outside will? When we are told to deny our senses and subject them to the whim of others? When people devoid of whatsoever competence are made judges over experts and are granted authority to treat them as they please? These are the novelties which are apt to bring about the ruin of commonwealths and the subversion of the state."
"Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty."
"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved."
"It is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify."
"My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?"
"In order to convince those obdurate men, who are out for the vain approval of the stupid vulgar, it would not be enough even if the stars came down on earth to bring witness about themselves."
"I repent having given the world a portion of my writings; I feel inclined to consign what is left to the flames and thus placate at last the inextinguishable hatred of my enemies."
"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment."
"Nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages."

For more details, see:

The Galileo Project
The Trial of Galileo

Stop right there yourself.

You have proven to me you know almost noting of the Bible and those who defend it.

Your slamming of Newton with a cut and paste can easily be responded to with a cut and paste on what a fine Christian he was.

I can pick apart his theology myself, but it was his desire to please God and discover God's creation that led him on his discoveries.

and if you were intellectually honest, you would admit that.

Isaac Newton: Scientist and theologian

by Ruy Carlos de Camargo Vieira

He was an unusual person—absent-minded and generous, sensitive to criticism and modest. He faced a series of psychological crises. He had trouble maintaining good social relations. Yet, he was one of history’s rare giants—a brilliant physicist, a superb astronomer and mathematician, and a natural philosopher.

When Isaac Newton, that rare English genius and gentleman, died in 1727 at the age of 85, he left an indelible mark in every endeavor he set his mind upon.We know his laws of motion and theories of gravitation. We know him for his contribution to the understanding of the universe. But rarely do we know his contributions to Christian theology. After extensive study of his writings, I have concluded that Newton was not only a great scientist, but also a great theologian—a true Adventist and a creationist.1

My journey to the understanding of Newton as a theologian began some 45 years ago when I became a Seventh-day Adventist after attending an evangelistic series on the fascinating Bible prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. I was then studying at the Polytechnic School of the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, pursuing a degree in engineering.

The university environment was by no means nurturing to my faith. I was bombarded from every direction. Materialism, humanistic preoccupations, and a narrow scientific worldview converged to question my new-found faith. I needed something to defend what I believed to be true, and I wanted my defense to be sound and logical.

In my search for suitable literature, I came across a 1950 Portuguese version of Newton’s Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse—not in the university library or in a bookstore, but on a roadside sale of old books. I was delighted to find that the same Isaac Newton whom we, as engineering students, had known in optics, mechanics, calculus, and gravitation, had dedicated a significant amount of time and effort to biblical chronology and to the interpretation of prophecy! Indeed the Encyclopaedia Britannica lists Newton’s The Chronology of Ancient Kings Amended and Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John among his five most important works, the others being Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Opticks, and Arithmetica Universalis.

My discovery and study of Newton as a Christian scholar led me to understand him as a creationist, an Adventist, and an interpreter of prophecies.

Newton, the creationist

Robert Boyle, a pioneer in experiments on the properties of gases, and a strong promoter of Christianity, who advocated the scientific study of nature as a religious duty, died in 1691. His will provided for an annual lecture series intended to defend Christianity against unbelief. Richard Bentley, a clergyman and distinguished classical scholar, delivered the first series of lectures in 1692.

In preparation for his lecture, Bentley sought Newton’s help, who was already famous for his Principia (1687). Bentley hoped to demonstrate that, according to physical laws that rule the natural world, it should have been impossible for heavenly bodies to appear without the intervention of a divine agent.

From then on, Bentley and Newton exchanged an “almost-theological” correspondence. In his first letter to Bentley, Newton declared: “When I wrote my tract on our system, I had my eyes turned to principles that could act considering mankind’s belief in a Divinity, and nothing is more grateful for me than to see it useful for this goal.”2

Newton wrote again: “The movements the planets have today could not be originated from an isolated natural cause, but they have been imposed by an intelligent agent.”3

Other writings further establish Newton’s strong belief in a Creator, whom he often referred as the “Pantokrator,” the Almighty, “with authority upon all existing things, upon the form of the natural world and the course of human history.”

Newton was clear in stating his convictions: “We must believe that there is only one God or supreme monarch Whom we may fear and keep His laws and give Him honour and glory. We must believe that He is the father from Whom all things come forth, and that loves His people as their father. We must believe that He is the ‘Pantokrator,’ Lord of everything, with irresistible and unlimited power and domain, from which we have no hope to escape if we rebel and follow other gods, or if we transgress the laws of His sovereignty, and from which we can hope great recompenses if we make His will. We must believe that He is the God of the Jews, Who created the heavens and the earth and all that in them exists, as expressed in the Ten Commandments, so that we may thank Him for our being and for all the blessings of this life, and refrain to use His name in vain or to adore images or other gods.”4

Newton, the Adventist

Newton was also concerned with the restoration of the Christian Church to its apostolic purity. His study of prophecy led him to conclude that ultimately the church, in spite of its current shortcomings, would triumph. William Whiston, who succeeded Newton as professor of mathematics at Cambridge and wrote The Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies, declared after Newton’s death that “he and Samuel Clarke had given up fighting for the Church’s restoration toward the standards of the primitive apostolic times because Newton’s interpretation of the prophecies had led them to expect a long era of corruption before it could be effective.”5

Newton believed in a faithful remnant that should witness up to the end of times. One of his biographers writes: “By true church, to which the prophecies pointed, Newton did not intend to comprehend all self-declared Christians, but a remnant, a few people dispersed, chosen by God, people that being not moved by any interest, instruction or the power of human authorities, are able to dedicate themselves sincerely and diligently to the search of truth.” “Newton was far from identifying whatever was around him as a true apostolic Christianity. His internal chronology had put the day of the final trumpet two centuries forward.”6

In Daniel 2 Newton saw the development of the history of humankind up to the end of time, when Christ should establish His reign. He wrote: “And a stone cut out without hands, which fell upon the feet of the Image, and broke all the four Metals to pieces, and became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth; it further represents that a new kingdom should arise, after the four, and conquer all those nations, and grow very great, and last to the end of all ages.”7

Dealing with the subsequent visions of Daniel, Newton makes clear that after the fourth reign on the earth should come the second coming of Christ and the establishment of His eternal kingdom: “The prophecy of the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven relates to the second coming of Christ.”8

Newton, the prophetic interpreter

Newton was not satisfied with the then-current interpretation of prophecy. He held that the interpreters had “no previous method... [They] distort parts of prophecy, putting them out of their natural order, at their own convenience.”9

In harmony with his approach to scientific issues, Newton established standards for prophetic interpretation, with a codification of the prophetic language intended to eliminate the possibility of distortion “at one’s convenience,” and adopted the criterion to let Scripture unveil and explain Scripture.

Thus, Newton’s interpretation differed from the majority of his contemporaries. He was not interested in applying prophecy to explain the political history of England, as some others did, but rather to focus toward the study of the beginnings of the great apostasy that occurred in the church, and toward the final restoration of the church to its purity.

This interest in the restoration of the church to its apostolic purity led Newton to a study of the second coming of Christ. His concern for the future led him to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. He, like the dispensationalists of today, assigned the last week to an undetermined future at which time the return of the Jews and the reconstruction of Jerusalem would begin, to be culminated with the glorious second coming of Christ.

This interpretation, of course, is contrary to Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. However, some of Newton’s principles of interpretation are in consonance with Adventist ones. For example, consider Newton’s interpretation of symbols:

“Tempestuous winds, or the motion of clouds (is put) for wars;… Rain, if not immoderate, and dew, and living water, (are put) for the graces and doctrines of the Spirit; and the defect of rain, for spiritual barrenness. In the earth, the dry land and congregated waters, as a sea, a river, a flood, are put for the people of several regions, nations, and dominions…. And several animals as a Lion, a Bear, a Leopard, a Goat, according to their qualities, are put for several kingdoms and bodies politic.… A Ruler is signified by his riding on a beast; a Warrior and Conqueror, by having a sword and bow; a potent man, by his gigantic stature; a Judge, by weights and measures;… honour and glory, by a splendid apparel; royal dignity, by purple or scarlet, or by a crown; righteousness, by white and clean robes; wickedness, by spotted and filthy garments.”10

In the interpretation of time-related prophecies, Newton held that “Daniel’s days are years.”11 He applied this principle to the 70 weeks12 and to “three and half times” period of apostasy. Newton makes clear that the “prophetic day” is “one solar year” long, and that “time” in the prophecy is also equivalent to one solar year: “And times and laws were hence forward given into his hand, for a time, times and half a time, or three times and an half; that is, for 1260 solar years, reckoning a time for a Calendar year of 360 days, and a day for a solar year.”13

Conclusion

Newton was extremely cautious in his religious beliefs. That may partly explain why he did not publish his theological works during his lifetime. Perhaps Newton, aware of the English religious environment, did not want to be accused of heresy, but instead pursued truth as he saw it in the Bible. Fortunately, his theological works were published posthumously.

As Seventh-day Adventists, we may not agree with all of Newton’s interpretations of Bible prophecy. But we can profit from his theological works and his careful methodology so that we can stand firm in faith, even while pursuing scientific studies. Here was a giant of science who was not ashamed of his faith and who devoted time to understand God’s Word both as it predicts the movement of history and provides guidance to order one’s personal life.

Ruy Carlos de Camargo Vieira (Ph.D., University of Sao Paulo) is a mechanical and electrical engineer and is currently a member of the Higher Council of the Brazilian Space Agency. In 1971 Dr. Vieira founded the Brazilian Creationist Society and launched the Folha Criacionista, a journal published twice a year in Portuguese. His address: Caixa Postal 08743; 70312-970 Brasilia, D.F.; Brazil. Fax: 55-61-577-3892.

Notes and references

1. See my Sir Isaac Newton: Adventista? a booklet published by the Sociedade Criacionista Brasileira (Brazilian Creationist Society).

2. Richard S. Westfall, The Life of Isaac Newton (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 204.

3. Bernard Cohen, Isaac Newton: Papers & Letters on Natural Philosophy (Cambridge Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 284.

4. Westfall, p. 301.

5. Ibid., p. 300.

6. Ibid., p. 128.

7. Isaac Newton, Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, pp. 25-26.

8. Ibid., p. 128.

9. Westfall, pp. 128, 129.

10. Newton, Observations, pp. 18-22.

11. Ibid., p. 122.

12. Ibid., p. 130.

13. Ibid., pp. 113, 114.

The Testimony of Sir Isaac Newton

Isaac E. Wagner

RELC 491, Fall 2000

Professor Steven Jones INTRODUCTION

Sir Isaac Newton was one of the greatest scientific minds to ever live. His formulations and theories are the basis for much of our modern science. Before the age of thirty, he had done experiments with optics and refraction, and formulated theories of light and color. He also formed theories of gravitation which extended the work of Kepler. In describing these planetary motions he invented a new mathematical system - Calculus. Every student of the sciences, in some way or other, is taught something of Newton's theories. With the discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton so widely taught, it's something of an enigma as to why so few learn anything of the man himself. Who was Isaac Newton, and what compelled him to such profound discoveries? Many scholars have written and proposed theories about Newton and his motivations, however, for the subject at hand it is best to let Newton speak for himself. Hence, wherever possible, direct quotations will be used.

Isaac Newton first came into this world, according to the calendar of the day, on Christmas Day 1642. He was born prematurely, to Hannah Newton, in a humble home in Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire, England. Newton never knew his father for he had died three months prior to the birth. When Newton was about three, his mother remarried and moved to a neighboring village, leaving young Isaac in the care of his grandmother. He remained under her care until he was about eleven, when the now Hannah Smith's husband died and she moved back to Woolsthorpe. Despite this separation Newton's mother was a central figure in his life. She is described as a "woman of so extraordinary an understanding & virtue that those who . . . think that a soul like Sir Isaac Newton's could be formed by any thing less than the immediate operation of a Divine Creator might be apt to ascribe to her many of those extraordinary qualities with which it was endowed" (qtd. in Manuel, Portrait 25).

In 1662, at the age of nineteen, Isaac Newton left home and went to Trinity College at Cambridge University. In 1665 he received a Bachelor of Arts. In 1669 he went on to receive his Master of Arts. Also, in that same year, he became the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics. With the outbreak of the plague in 1665 Cambridge University was closed and Newton returned home. It's interesting to note that Newton's most significant breakthroughs came during approximately this same time period, between the years of 1664 and 1666. A mind such as Newton's, without the pressures of school, was free to roam the universe and discover the laws with which it operates.

Over the course of Newton's eighty-four years he wrote many scientific papers, however, it is little known that the bulk of his writings dealt not with scientific subject matter, but with religious topics. When his writings were auctioned off at Sotheby's, the lots dealing with chronology comprised 200,000 words, while the ones dealing with religion contained over a million words (Yeates 4). Of his insatiable thirst for knowledge Newton said, "that a little knowledge leads away from God, but much knowledge leads toward Him" (Yeates 13-14). From his writings, it's apparent that Newton attributed much of his knowledge to inspiration from God. For example, on one occasion he was asked how he made his discoveries, he replied , "I keep the subject constantly before me, and wait till the fist dawnings open slowly by little and little and into the full and clear light." He also said that truth was "the offspring of silence and unbroken meditation" (Manuel, Portrait 86).

In considering Newton's religious ideas and writings, it is best broken into three categories: His beliefs on everyday religion, the Trinity, and the Apostasy.

RELIGION IN NEWTON'S LIFE

It is evident that religious thought was a part of Newton's life from the beginning. As he grew, it became an ever increasing passion of his to learn about God and His ways. These theological undercurrents in Newton instilled a sense of deep responsibility to God. An early example of this is seen in the year that Newton went to Cambridge. Sometime in 1662, Newton recorded 58 sins that he felt he had committed. It seems he felt deeply troubled about violating the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." He wrote that he had been guilty of "setting my heart on money learning pleasure more than Thee," and "Caring for worldly things more than God." He continues with a long list of offenses which he considered directly against God: "Not turning nearer to Thee for my afflictions. Not living according to my belief. Not loving Thee for Thy self. Not loving Thee for Thy goodness to us. Not desiring Thy ordinances. Not long [longing?] for thee. . . . Not fearing Thee so as not to offend Thee. Fearing man above Thee." Newton also carefully recounted every sin that he had committed on the Sabbath: "Eating an apple at They house; Making a feather while one [on] Thy day; Making a mousetrap on Thy day; Contriving of the chimes on Thy day; Squirting water on Thy day; Twisting a cord on Sunday morning; Putting a pin in John Keys hat on Thy day to pick him." Further, "Missing chapel." "Carelessly hearing and committing many sermons." "Negligence at the chapel; Sermons at Saint Marys 4; Neglecting to pray 3."

The sense of responsibility that Newton felt toward God, also extended towards his fellow man. Some of the sins in this category are, "Stealing cherry cobs from Eduard Storer; Denying that I did so; Robbing my mothers box of plums and sugar." "Striking many; Punching my sister." "Having uncleane thoughts words and actions and dreamese." "Refusing to go to the closet at my mothers command." "Using Wilford's towel to spare my owne." (Manuel, Portrait 61-64)

It should be apparent that Newton considered the commandments of upmost import in his life, yet being human he would often slip and make mistakes again. One striking glimpse of his understanding of the gospel and the covenant obligation he was under is seen in one simple phrase recorded in his list of sins: "A breaking again of my covenant renued in the Lords Supper." He felt bad for making the same mistakes over and over, especially after repenting and taking the Lords Supper.

It should be no surprise that this responsibility Newton felt towards God came from his voracious appetite for the scriptures. Newton read the scriptures throughout his life, though more so in his later years. Much of the first thirty years of his life had been devoted mainly to scientific study, however in about 1673 he started a theological study that lasted for about a decade. In his studies he carefully read the Bible, and made extensive study of early Christian writings. During these years he became so absorbed that he tried, as much as possible, to make himself unavailable to the scientific community (Yeates 59-60). Like everything in Newton's life, he was an original thinker and arrived at his doctrinal beliefs by careful study of these materials. He wasn't content to merely accept the dogma of the day.

As can be imagined, Newton formed some strong opinions about regular scripture study. He said, "Search the scriptures thy self & that by frequent [reading] & constant meditation upon what thou readest & earnest prayer to God to enlighten thine understanding if thou desirest to find the truth." He continues, "Which if thou shalt at length attain thou wilt value above all other treasures in the world by reason of the assurance & vigour it will add to they faith, & steady satisfaction to thy mind which he only can know how to estimate who shall experience it " (Yeates 72). It would seem that Newton had experienced this great joy and satisfaction for himself.

One of the problems held by many modern scholars is the supposed conflict between science and religion. Newton felt strongly that religion and science go hand in hand, and indeed help each other. In 1687, Newton published The Principia, in which he details his understanding of the natural laws of the universe. Regarding this publication he said, "when I wrote my Treatise about our System, I had an Eye upon such Principles as might work with considering Men, for the belief of a Deity, and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose" (Yeates 70). On another occasion he wrote that "this most beautiful system of the sun, and planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of one" (69-70.).

In all his studies, Newton felt that they drew him closer to God. He felt very strongly that it was not only acceptable to be religious and scientific, but it was essential. He said:

Let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety of an ill-applied moderation think or maintain, that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress of proficiency in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not the ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together. (Manuel, Religion 30)

In his exhortations to study the scriptures, Newton used the ancient Jews as an example. The Jewish people were supposed to be God's chosen, who knew His word so they would know Christ when He came. Newton said, "The benefit which may accrue by understanding the sacred Prophesies & the danger by neglecting them is very great & that the obligation to study them is as great may appear by considering the like case of the Jews at the coming of Christ. . . . For the rules whereby they were to know their Messiah were the prophecies of the Old Testament" (Yeates 70-71). It was Newton's belief that scripture study was essential to know and recognize the Messiah for who he is. He felt that the Jews mistook the prophecies of the Savior's second coming for his first because the prophesies of the Second Coming are much clearer.

[The Jews] were not aware of the manner of his two comings; they understood the description of his second coming, & only were mistaken in applying that to the time of his first coming. . . . Consider therefore, if the description of his second coming was so much more plain & perspicuous than that of the first, if they Jews who could not so much as perceive any thing of the first could yet understand the second, how shall we escape who understand nothing of the second but have turned the whole of it into Allegories.

Of course there have been, and are, many who study the scriptures and feel they have found the grace of God. Newton's feelings on this can be readily seen from his lamentation, "where are the men that do never yield to anger nor seek revenge, nor disobey governours, not censure & speak evil of them, not cheat, nor lye, nor swear, nor use God's name idly in their common talk, nor are proud nor ambitious nor covetous, or unchaste, nor drink immoderately?" Continuing, "Where are they that live like primitive Christians, that love God with all their hearts & with all their souls & with all their might, & their neighbor as their selves; & that in what they do are not rather led by fashions & principles of Gentility than religion?" Or, to simply sum it up, "as is their faith so is their practice" (Yeates 47-48). Such was the faith of Newton.

NEWTON AND THE TRINITY

That Newton was a man of great faith should be apparent by now. Where did it lead him? Perhaps most importantly, how did he view Christ and His relationship to God?

During Newton's day, it was common for Englishmen to despise the Catholic Church. They felt that the Catholic's had proven themselves in recent history to be of the devil. Things had in fact gone to the point where anyone not believing in the Church of England was branded a heretic. Isaac Newton himself held no small disrespect for the Catholic Church, however, he also viewed the Anglican Church with some contempt. His views were not widely known, which is just as well, because with the feelings of the day he may well have lost his life.

One of the major complaints that Newton had was over the Trinity. The doctrine of the trinity, or concept of three beings in one, being everywhere yet nowhere, was something that he found utterly incongruent. Newton was a man of much learning and had spent a considerable amount of time in theological study, as such he had formed his own opinions as to the nature of God and His Son. During his studies he found that this doctrine of the Triune God was a result of the Nicene Council, and was the deliberate twisting of scripture.

The Nicene Council of 325 A.D. was attended by more than 300 bishops. Within this council was discussed the nature of God and what sort of being He was. Two of the major doctrinal players in the council were Arius and Athanasius, each with different views of the nature of God. Arius believed that God and Christ were separate beings, and that Christ was created by the Father out of nothing. Athanasius, on the other hand, maintained that God and Christ were one substance and being. Athanasius won out and Arius' views were officially condemned in the council. Thus the Nicene Creed was born:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, Begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us by Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day He rose again according to the scriptures, And ascended into Heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end.

Newton has been placed by different scholars into various religious groups. Some suggest that he was Arian, though he has also been classed as Unitarian and Trinitarian. The Unitarian belief is that God only is divine and that Christ is a subordinate to the Father, and has no divinity of himself. The reasoning is that Newton felt that Christ was merely a prophet. Newton is most often classed as Arian because of the common belief that Arius and Newton held - that the Father and Son are distinct beings. However, Newton himself censured both Arius and Athanasius for corupting scripture. He says:

Both of them perplexed the Church with metaphysical opinions and expressed their opinions in novel language not warranted by scripture. . . . The Homousians made the father and son one god by metaphysical unity the unity of substance: the Greek Churches rejected all metaphysical divinity as well that of Arius as that of the Homousians and made the father and son one god by a Monarchical unity, an unity of Dominion, the Son receiving all things from the father, being subject to him, executing his will, sitting in his throne and calling him his God, and so is but one God with the Father as a king and his viceroy are but one king. . . . And therefore as a father and his son cannot be called one King upon account of their being consubstantial but may be called one King by unity of dominion if the Son be Viceroy under the father: so God and his son cannot be called one God upon account of their being consubstantial. (Manual, Historian 58)

Of particular interest is this last point Newton made, which he reiterated on another occasion: "Nothing can make two persons one God but unity of dominion. And if the Father and the Son be united in dominion, the son being subordinate to the father and sitting in his throne, they can no more be called two Gods then a King and his viceroy can be called two kings" (Manuel, Historian, 59-60). He felt very strongly that Christ and God were two distinct beings, and that Christ had a separate body. As a "proof" of this he says, "His... being handled by Thomas is a proof that he had a body after his resurrection. Not the body of an Angel which hath not flesh and bones but a body which by the power of his will he could form into the consistency and solidity of flesh and bones as well before his incarnation and after his resurrection" (60).

Though perhaps he did not have a complete understanding, Newton understood that Christ had a body and was not merely an etherial being. He felt that God the Father was supreme ruler, but that Christ was His Divine Son and ruled with his Father. Newton wrote extensively about this in connection to the great apostasy, as will be shown. He said, "For there is but one God so there is but one Mediator between God and man; the man Christ Jesus" (Manuel, Historian 60).

A biographer summarizes:

"Newton also wrote on Judaeo-Christian prophecy, whose decipherment was essential, he thought, to the understanding of God. His book on the subject... represented lifelong study. Its message was that Christianity went astray in the 4^th century AD, when the first Council of Nicaea propounded erroneous doctrines of the nature of Christ. The full extent of Newton's unorthodoxy was recognized only in the present century [1900's]; but although a critic of accepted Trinitarian dogmas and the Council of Nicaea, he possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God's providential role in nature." www.math.ou.edu/~amiller/1823/misc/newton.htm

One final point, some have tried to say that Newton supported the Anglican Church, reasoning that he was staunchly against the Catholic Church and therefore must be pro-Anglican. A story often cited regards a Catholic Monk who tried to get Cambridge University to grant him a Masters degree. King James II pressed the school to allow it, but finally the University's vice-chancellor, along with Isaac Newton appeared before the High Court and got the King to back down. As it has been shown, however, Newton held no respect for the Trinitarian Doctrine and accordingly cannot be classed as an Anglican.

A biographer reports Newton's refusal to be ordained into the Church of England:

"Newton, by his constant refusal to be ordained, risked losing his Fellowship at Trinity [College], and would have lost it had not Charles II been induced by the Royal Society to issue letters patent in 1675, saying that the holder of the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics could hold a college Fellowship even if he did not take holy orders, notwithstanding any college statute to the contrary." Sir Isaac Newton Theological Manuscripts, p. 13.

APOSTASY AND THE APOCALYPSE

During Newton's intense study of theology, he devoured John's Book of Revelation. He felt that one of the great purposes of this book is to "describe and obviate the great Apostasy." Which apostasy he feels was to begin by "corrupting the truth about the relation of the Son to the Father in putting them equal" (Yeates 31). This Revelation, or Apocalypse, clarifies Christ's role toward God. As a proof that Christ is divine, yet still subordinate to the Father, Newton recounts John's vision. In this vision, the Son is given a book, which he did not have before the completion of his earthly mission, and which was a new revelation to him. If the revelation was new the Christ, how could they be one person? And if the Son of God was not allowed to see the revelation before he had ascended to heaven, how can he be equal to God? He had to prove himself worthy to receive such a great book. To further his point, Newton cites Mark 13:32 "Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (emphasis added).

In Newton's own words regarding the book:

And the contents of it you must conceive of so transcendent excellency that they were fit to be communicated to none but the Lamb. . . . This book signifies one of the greatest treasures that he who sat upon the throne ever conferred upon the Lamb, and consequently nothing less than all that fulness of knowledge of things past and to come which God gave him after his resurrection. This is certain, that is signifies such knowledge as the Lamb had not received before, the Apocalypse itself being a new revelation to him. (Yeates 31).

From Newton's studies of early Christian writers, and from his own studies, he came to the conclusion that the Trinity Doctrine was a deliberate lie introduced into the Church. He felt that there had been a great falling away from the truth. The belief of a great apostasy was not uncommon at that time. However, most seemed to feel that the beast spoken of in the Apocalypse was the Roman Catholic Church, and that the Anglican Church had brought back the true order. The stems in part from the common interpretation of the time line given in the book. Newton instead felt that Trinitarianism was the apostasy, which corrupted all of Christianity. He seemed to feel that though the truth had been obscured, there would be those who would find it for themselves. He said, "but a remnant, a few scattered persons which God hath chosen, such as without being led by interest, education, or humane authorities, can set themselves sincerely & earnestly [to] search after truth" (Yeates 43). Newton seems to have felt that he was one of those humble seekers of truth.

A predominant theme in Newton's commentary on the Apocalypse is that of the Antichrist. He gives a stern warning that we are to know the scriptures so that we can avoid the Antichrist. He said that it's a "duty of the greatest moment." He further warns us to "look about thee narrowly, least thou shouldst in so degenerate an age be dangerously seduced & not know it." The preparation that Newton feels we need is the study of the scriptures. As previously mentioned, Newton felt it the upmost importance in one's life to study and ponder the scriptures. Warning of the great apostasy, Newton wrote that the "Antichrist was to seduce the whole Christian world & therefore he may easily seduce thee if thou be not well prepared to discern him."

Newton seemed particularly worried over those who did not know the truth because they do not want to hear. He found that most people seemed quite content to not know the truth. They would rather stick with tradition and prejudice, than to know God. He said, "But the world loves to be deceived, they will not understand, they never consider equally, but are wholly led by prejudice, interest, the praise of men, & authority of the Church [they] live in as is plain because all parties keep close to the Religion they have been brought up in." Continuing, he says, "There are but few who seek to understand the religion they profess, & those that study for understanding therein, do it rather for worldly ends, or that they may defend it, then to examine whither it be true with a resolution to chose & profess that religion which in their judgement appears the best."

Then comes perhaps some of the most interesting points to ponder: "[Amidst] so many religions of which there can be but one true & perhaps non of those that thou art acquainted with it is great odds but thou mayest be deceived & therefore it concerns thee to be very circumspect." Newton felt that there was only one true religion, but that perhaps none that were on the earth were correct. Further, he felt that although the reformation was making great strides, it was not at that time winning against Satan, and that it would not win until the time was right. "And this is sufficient in general to show that Popery if it be the mystery of iniquity may yet prevail in the world, the time allotted for its destruction not being yet come: for although the Reformation may be termed the Spirit of Christ's mouth being regulated according to his word & it be evident that hath in part confounded the man of sin yet he shall continue & hath of lat considerably prevailed [against] the Reformation in many places & may yet further on until the brightness of the Lords coming by which he is to be destroyed."(Yeates 46-47).

CONCLUSION

Isaac Newton was one of the greatest thinkers ever, and is well known for his many contributions to science. He also possessed one of the keenest religious aptitudes of anyone in the modern world. His belief in God permeated every aspect of his life and was part of his innermost thinking. To Newton, religion was not just a once a week ritual, but a constant upward climb that needed work everyday. As Newton says, "as is their faith so is their practice," or in other words, "practice what you preach." He further declares that to "celebrate God for his eternity, immensity, omnisciency, and omnipotence is indeed very pious and the duty of every creature to do it according to capacity. . . ." (Manuel, Religion 21).

Newton summed up his own testimony in these words:

We are, therefore, to acknowledge one God, infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, the creator of all things, most wise, most just, most good, most holy. We must love him, fear him, honour him, trust in him, pray to him, give him thanks, praise him, hallow his name, obey his commandments, and set times apart for His service, as we are directed in the third and fourth commandments, for this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grievous. I John v.3. And these things we must do not to any mediators between his and us, but to him alone, that he may give his angels charge over us, who being our fellow-servants, are pleased with the worship we give to their God. And this is the first and principal part of religion. This always was, and always will be the religion of God's people, from the beginning to the end of the world. (Yeates 19)

WORKS CITED

"Arianism." Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000. 13 Dec 2000 <http://encarta.msn.com>

"Nicene Creed." Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000. 13 Dec 2000 <http://encarta.msn.com>

Manuel, Frank E. The Religion of Isaac Newton. London: Oxford UP, 1974.

---. A Portrait of Isaac Newton. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1968

Strathern, Paul. The Big Idea: Newton and Gravity. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

Yeates, Owen Dennis. Transcendence: Reassessing the Religious Thinking of Sir Isaac Newton. Honors Diss. Brigham Young U, 2000. Provo, UT: 2000.

A. Miller, www.math.ou.edu/~amiller/1823/misc/newton.htm.

H. McLachlan, M.A., D.D., Sir Isaac Newton Theological Manuscripts, , Liverpool at the university press, 1950.

Topic: Religion
The Bible Never said the Earth was flat or the center of the Universe

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3738ed013863.htm

Christian Answers
... Thomas H. Henderson, Christian Answers Network.

What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?

What were Galileo Galilei's conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany which became the basis of his first Church trial and censure. A major work published in 1632 resulted in Galileo's conviction on suspicion of heresy and a lifetime house arrest. The Galileo affair provides important lessons and applications to the Church and to science today.

Background

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) believed the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center. Enclosing the whole universe is the sphere of the Prime Motion turned by the First Unmoved Mover. Inside that were transparent spheres containing fixed and unchanging stars, planets, moon and sun.[1] Aristotle was also a renowned philosopher.

Clement and Origen (185-254 A.D.), both of Alexandria, sought to reconcile Greek wisdom (Aristotle's thoughts in philosophy and sciences) with scriptural wisdom. Origen imagined separate literal, moral, and spiritual senses of Bible passages (expanded to five senses in Concordism today).[2]

Van Bebber says, "This allegorical interpretation gave birth to a new brand of Christianity. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), although not as extreme as Clement or Origen, accepted this new approach. Through Augustine the mixing of philosophy, culture, and theology became inter-twined. And, since Catholic theology recognizes the traditions of the Church as equal in authority with written scripture, changing this trend became impossible. Eventually, the roots planted in Augustine took full bloom in Thomas Aquinas" (1224-1274 A.D.).[3] The Renaissance Period (1300-1600 A.D.), the rebirth of Greek philosophy, reinforced Aristotle's philosophy and science, already embedded in Roman Catholic theology and tradition. The most serious scientific error was acceptance of an earth-centered cosmos. But this error fit well in the man-centered theme of the Renaissance.

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543 A.D.) was a Renaissance man educated in the classics, law, theology, mathematics, metaphysics, languages, and astronomy. Copernicus developed a cosmology with the sun at the center, the earth rotating about a polar axis, and the earth and planets circling the sun, essentially as we know it today.[4]

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 A.D.) received a broad Renaissance education. Until 1610, when Galileo built his first telescope at age 46, he focused mainly on physics, not astronomy. He soon made discoveries which shook the foundations of the Aristotelian cosmos. He saw mountains, valleys and other features indicating change on the moon. He observed the motion of four of Jupiter's moons, now referred to as the Galilean moons. No longer could scientists say that heavenly bodies revolve exclusively around the earth. He also observed the phases of Venus, the only explanation of which is that Venus moves around the sun and not the earth.

Response to these discoveries ranged from enthusiastic to very hostile. Never fearing a fight, Galileo actively defended his evidence which supported the Copernican cosmos. Hummel states,

"He was a passionate, powerful character who could dominate any room or discussion. His talent and wit won a variety of illustrious friends in university, court and church circles, ... At the same time his biting sarcasm against those whose arguments were vulnerable to his scientific discoveries made him some formidable enemies. Galileo thrived on debate... His professional life was spent not only in observing and calculating but also in arguing and convincing. His goal was to promote as well as develop a new scientific world view."[5]

Johnston, a Catholic defending the Church, wrote that Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the throat of Christendom. Johnston claims that Galileo's position and manner had alienated many and left the Church authorities no room to maneuver. While there is some truth in Johnston's assertion, it was a minor factor in the conflict.

The primary problem, as introduced earlier, was that Aristotle's science was going out of style; but the church was still attached to him. It could not make a distinction between Aristotle and Christian teachings; and in that era, there was no distinguishment or separation of science from philosophy. For the Church, if Aristotle was wrong, Christianity was wrong.[6]

Another background factor in Galileo's conflict with the Church was the influence of the Reformation. Because Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.) and the Protestant reformation (1517 A.D.) questioned Church authority, the Roman Church lost significant power and influence. It reacted with a list of literature forbidden to Catholics. Included were any writings challenging traditional Scripture interpretation.[7]

Letter to Madame Christina

In 1615 Galileo wrote a letter outlining his views to Madame Christina of Lorraine, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, "Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science."[8] The tribunal used this letter against him in his first trial in 1616. They directed Galileo to relinquish Copernicanism and to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it.[9]

Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo's view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."[10]

He cited Copernicus in the same vein: "He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood".[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.

"And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"[12]

The Church had no problem with these solid orthodox views. Galileo was a man of faith as well as science.

Two examples from Galileo's letter help to illustrate his interpretation of Scripture dealing with science. Some say he should have left Scripture alone and just stuck to science, but he was in a "no-win situation" whatever he did, for the Roman Catholic Church's Aristotelian views were being challenged.

Job 9:6 says, "Who moveth the earth from its place..." Galileo cites the Commentary on Job (1584) by Didacus a Stunica which concluded that the mobility of the earth is not contrary to Scripture.[13] Today, creationists would term this passage "observer true." In Galileo's day, they used the equivalent phrase or expression "speaking according to appearances." That is, for us who live on the earth it does not appear to move under our feet. But Galileo's opponents would not accept this explanation.[14]

A second passage and Galileo's commentary illustrate that he felt Scripture dealing with science should not be interpreted literally. Job 26:7 states, "He stretcheth out the north over the void, and hangeth the earth above nothing." Galileo says, "St. Thomas Aquinas notes that the Bible calls 'void' or 'nothing' that space which we know to be not empty, but filled with air. Nevertheless the Bible he says, in order to accommodate itself to the beliefs of the common people (who think there is nothing in that space), calls it 'void' or 'nothing'."[15] As a side note, today we know that this verse is literally and scientifically true as written. No accommodation needs to be made for the common or uneducated person. Space is a void except for a thin layer of air surrounding our earth.

A New Book and a Second Trial

In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems -- Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication, a twelve year effort, presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered). Galileo also warned the Church of a trap they were walking into:

"Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position--eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still."[16]

The Roman Catholic hierarchy and their Aristotlean-Ptolemaic advisors did not heed this advice. The Roman Curia promptly banned and confiscated Galileo's monumental work; and it became the basis for his second trial, censure, and lifetime house arrest by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633. The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis. They suspected him of holding heretical opinions condemned by the Church, which they ordered him to abjure [abandon a false opinion]. Seven of the ten Cardinals presiding signed his condemnation.[17]

The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."[18]

Historical Aftermath of the Galileo Affair

As new observations poured in, evidence grew supporting a Copernican view. The Roman Catholic Church leadership looked like fools, opening a wedge between science and religion that has increasingly widened to today. As Johnston put it, "To the popular mind, the Galileo affair is prima facie evidence that the free pursuit of truth became possible only after science 'Liberated' itself from the theological shackles of the Middle Ages. ...the Galileo case is one of the historic bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church -- the other two being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition."[19]

Applications and Lessons Today

Application to Science

Today, Science views Galileo's conflict with Church hierarchy as a great triumph of science over religion. Today Science is king, Nature is the Creator, and God (if He exists) is irrelevant. Galileo would not have viewed it thus, for his faith in the truth of God's Word remained strong. He recognized that God is King and Creator, not Nature.

Misapplication by Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists

Theistic evolutionists and Progressive Creationists often use a "Two Book" concept to reconcile or compromise the Bible with Science. They claim both the "Book of Nature" and the "Book of Scripture" are true or applicable in their own realm. But today, Science is always put first. Thus, religion must bow to scientific findings. The "Book of Scripture" must yield to and accommodate the "Book of Nature". Theologians must reinterpret or compromise Scripture to accommodate whatever today's Science says is true. When new scientific theories come along, Biblical interpretations must change accordingly.

The Two-Book concept was encouraged by Galileo's view that scientific descriptions in the Bible were not important, for the common man could not understand them. Galileo used the same terminology. For example, Galileo said, "The Book of Nature is written in (clearly-understood) mathematics."[20] Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[21]

Lessons to Religious Authority

The Roman Curia, the religious authorities, imposed Aristotle's view upon the Bible, allowing Greek philosophy to influence its theology. They steadfastly maintained their traditions and erroneous interpretations of Scripture[22] above increasing scientific observations to the contrary. Galileo's published works remained on the Roman Church's Index of Prohibited Books until 1835. Not until 1981 did the Roman Catholic Church officially forgive Galileo.[23]

Van Bebber aptly states, "The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound Biblical teachings must be abandoned. Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness."[24]

Lesson to All

A final lesson and warning applies to the Church, Science, and the modern Creationist movement today. Beware of holding steadfastly to a particular interpretation of Scripture and/or a scientific model, which may be in error. For instance, there are various scientific challenges to the Young-Earth Creationist position. We should hold many of our scientific views and their corresponding Biblical interpretations loosely. For we will never have all the right answers this side of heaven.

What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo? [Read]

References 1.Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection (InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 27-29. [up] 2.Mark Van Bebber, "What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo?", Christian Answers Network (www.ChristianAnswers.Net: Christian Answers Network, 1995), and Hummel, pp. 173, 259. [up] 3.Mark Van Bebber, E-mail communication to Tom Henderson, December 19, 1996. [up] 4.Hummel, pp. 43-45. [up] 5.Hummel, p. 82. [up] 6.Keith Bower, "Western Civilization" (class lecture) (College Of Biblical Studies, Fall 1996). [up] 7.Mark Van Bebber, "What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo?", Christian Answers Network (www.ChristianAnswers.Net: Christian Answers Network, 1995), and Hummel, pp. 173, 259. [up] 8.Stillman Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957), pp. 173-216. [up] 9.George Sim Johnston, The Galileo Affair (P.O. Box 1270, Princeton, New Jersey 08542: Scepter Press). [up] 10.Galileo, in Drake, p. 181. [up] 11.Ibid., pp.179-180. [up] 12.Ibid., p. 186. [up] 13.Ibid., p. 203. [up] 14.Ibid., p. 164. [up] 15.Ibid., p. 201. [up] 16.Galileo, 1632, in Janelle Rohr, editor, Science & Religion--Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press, 1988), p. 21. [up] 17.Rikva Feldhav, Galileo and the Church: Political Inquisition or Critical Dialogue? (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 15-16; "Condemnation of Galileo," etc. (Institute and Museum of the History of Science of Florence, Italy (IMSS): galileo.imss.firenze.it/museo/a/esenten.html); Robert Hutchins, editor, "Great Books of the Western World," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 28 (1952), p. 126. [up] 18.Janelle Rohr, editor, Science & Religion--Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press, 1988), p. 24. [up] 19.George Sim Johnston, The Galileo Affair (P.O. Box 1270, Princeton, New Jersey 08542: Scepter Press). [up] 20.Charles van Doren, A History of Knowledge (Ballentine Books, 1991), p. 200. [up] 21.Drake, p. 186; Rohr, p. 13. [up] 22.Van Bebber (1995). [up] 23.Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God (Promise Publishing, 1989), p. 21. [up] 24.Van Bebber (1995). [up] Author: Thomas H. Henderson, Christian Answers Network.

Copyright © 1996, 1999, Thomas H. Henderson, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached "Usage and Copyright" page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools. www.ChristianAnswers.Net Christian Answers Network 1832 S. Macdonald Ste 101 Mesa, AZ 85210 USA

GEOCENTRICITY AND CREATION
- IMPACT No. 253 July 1994
by Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D.*

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved
1. What is geocentricity?

Geocentricity is a conceptual model of the form of the universe which makes three basic assertions about the nature of the earth and its relationship to the rest of the universe. These are:

a. the earth is the center of the universe,
b. the earth is fixed (i.e., immobile) in space, and
c. the earth is unique and special compared to all other heavenly bodies.

2. What is the History of geocentricity?

The teaching of geocentricity can be traced in western thought at least back to Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Aristotle argued, for example, that the reason why all bodies fall to the ground is because they seek their natural place at the center of the universe which coincides with the center of the earth.

A geocentric model of the universe seems first to have been formalized by Ptolemy, the famous Greek astronomer who lived in Alexandria around A.D. 130. Ptolemy's model envisioned each planet moving in a small circle, the center of which moved along a large circular orbit about the earth. This model was generally accepted until Copernicus published his heliocentric model in 1543.

The heliocentric view pictures the sun as motionless at the center of the solar system with all the planets, including the earth, in motion around it. Copernicus' heliocentric model, because it used circles to describe the orbits of the planets about the sun instead of ellipses, was as clumsy and inaccurate as Ptolemy's geocentric model. However, it was conceptually simpler. It quickly gained acceptance, though not without considerable controversy. The conflict between these two views came to a head in the well-known trial of Galileo by the Inquisition in 1632.

Starting from a heliocentric viewpoint, Kepler (1571-1630) was able to formulate laws of planetary motion which accurately described the orbits of the planets for the first time. Newton (1643-1727) was then able to explain why Kepler's laws worked based upon his famous law of gravity. This tremendous progress in understanding resulted in almost universal acceptance of heliocentricity and rejection of geocentricity.

3. What does modern science say about geocentricity?

Many attempts were made to prove that heliocentricity was true and geocentricity was false, right up until the early 1900's. All such attempts were unsuccessful. The most well-known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which was designed to measure the change in the speed of light, due to the assumed motion of the earth through space, when measured in different directions on the earth's surface. The failure of this experiment to detect any significant change played an important role in the acceptance of Einstein's theory of special relativity.

The theory of special relativity holds as a basic assumption that the speed of light will always be the same everywhere in the universe irrespective of the relative motion of the source of the light and the observer. The ability of special relativity to successfully explain many non-intuitive physical phenomena which are manifested by atomic particles when moving at speeds greater than about one-tenth the speed of light seems to corroborate this assumption. Thus, the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and all other experiments of similar intent) to detect any motion of the earth through space is understood by modern science in terms of relativity rather than geocentricity.

Einstein's theory of general relativity adds further to the debate. It asserts that it is impossible for a human observer to determine whether any material body is in a state of absolute rest (i.e., immobile in space). It claims that only motion of two material bodies relative to one another can be physically detected. According to this theory the geocentric and heliocentric viewpoints are equally valid representations of reality, and it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to speak of one as being true and the other false. This shift in emphasis from an either-or argument to a synthesis and acceptance of both viewpoints is summed up by the well-known astronomer, Fred Hoyle, as follows:

The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense.[1]

Relativity is the theory which is accepted as the correct one by the great majority of scientists at present. However, many science teachers and textbooks are not aware of this, and it is not uncommon to find heliocentricity taught as the progressive and "obviously true" theory even today.

4. What does the Bible teach about geocentricity?

To learn what the Bible teaches regarding geocentricity, it is necessary to consider separately the three basic assertions of uniqueness, centrality, and fixity mentioned above since the composite "theory of geocentricity" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

The assertion that the earth is unique and special (item "c" above) is clearly and unequivocally taught in the first chapter of Genesis. The plain sense of the creation account is that all other heavenly bodies were not even brought into existence until the fourth day of creation. Thus, God had already created the earth, separated the waters above and below the atmosphere, formed the earth into continents and oceans, and brought forth vegetation upon the earth before He paused to create the solar system, the Milky Way, and all of the other material bodies in the universe. It is very clear that the creation of the earth was distinct from that of any other heavenly body.

The Biblical doctrine of the uniqueness of the earth is strongly supported by modern space exploration. In particular, every effort by scientists to demonstrate that life does or possibly could exist on other planets in our solar system has so far failed. Such efforts have only served to underscore how different the earth is in this regard from all other heavenly bodies which we have been able to study. While the earth teems with life, elsewhere space appears to be only barren and incredibly hostile to life. The earth gives every indication that it was specially designed for life, and it is unique in this regard.

In contrast to the bountiful evidence in the Bible which teaches that the earth is special, nowhere is it taught that the earth is the center of the universe (item "a" above). In fact, the Bible provides no explicit teaching on any questions relating to the form of the universe. We are not told, for example, whether the universe is finite or infinite, and no explicit statement can be found to help us know whether space is flat or curved. This is the type of information we would need to deduce whether the earth is at the center of the universe or if it even makes sense to say that the universe has a center. On matters relating to the physical form of the universe, the Bible is mute.

This leaves the more controversial assertion (item "b" above) that the earth is motionless in space to be discussed.

In fact, the Bible contains no explicit teaching on this matter either. Nowhere does the Bible set about to deal explicitly with the question of whether the earth is moving through space or not. To be sure, one can fashion implicit arguments for an immobile earth from the Bible, but in no instance do the Bible verses used to accomplish this goal rest in a context of an overall discussion of the physical form of the universe.

Evidently, while the physical form of the universe is an interesting scientific issue, it is not of very great importance Biblically. The lack of explicit Biblical teaching on this whole matter makes it impossible to call any conceptual model of the form of the universe "the Biblical view."

5. What is the role of geocentricity in creationism?

The Biblical status of the doctrine of creation contrasts sharply with that of geocentricity. The Bible opens with the explicit declaration: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and Genesis 1 goes on to outline in detail the doctrine of creation. While it is impossible to find any definitive teaching in the Bible on the physical form of the universe, it is impossible to miss the explicit teaching in the Bible that the world was supernaturally created by God, for it permeates Scripture.

Geocentricity and creationism are really separate matters. Because of the contrast in the way the Bible deals with these two issues, I believe that attempts to link geocentricity and creationism are ill-founded.

6. What can we learn of general importance from the geocentricity-helio-centricity relativity debate?

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the history of geocentricity is in connection with the question, "What role should scientific discovery play in the interpretation of the Bible?" It is surely ironic to see the incident of Galileo's trial before the Inquisition paraded as a supposedly unarguable illustration of the "mistake" recent-creationists make when they insist on a literal, supernatural, six-day creation and fail to yield to modern scientific views of how the universe came to be. "After all," we hear, "the theologians said that Galileo's heliocentric viewpoint was heresy, but now everybody knows that the theologians were wrong and Galileo was right."

In actual fact, as we have seen above, the current scientific consensus is that "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory [which Galileo held] is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory [which the theologians held] 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense."[1]

The generally overlooked lesson here is that scientific theories do not provide a very secure basis from which to interpret Scripture. In the course of the last five hundred years the weight of scientific consensus has rested in turn with each of three different theories about the form of the universe: first geocentricity, then helio-centricity, and now relativity.

This is the way it is with scientific theories—they come and go. But the Word of God endures forever. Let us be immovable in upholding what the Bible clearly teaches.

References
[1] Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973), p. 78.

Bibliography
Bouw, D. "The Bible and Geocentricity." Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, no. 41 (January, 1987), 22-25. (A more recent work by Bouw is: Geocentricity [Cleveland: Association for Biblical Astronomy, 1992].)

Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

Reichenbach, Hans. From Copernicus to Einstein. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1980.

Ronan, Colin Alistair. "Copernicus" The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th ed. XVI, 814-815.

* Dr. Aardsma is Assistant Professor of Astro Geophyics at ICR.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-253.htm

The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
by Thomas Schirrmacher

Summary
The 17th century controversy between Galileo and the Vatican is examined. Fifteen theses are advanced, with supporting evidence, to show that the Galileo affair cannot serve as an argument for any position on the relation of religion and science. Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.

Introduction
The process against Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in the 17th century is frequently used as an argument against creationist scientists and theologians, who make their belief in the trustworthiness of the Bible the starting point of their scientific research. Absolute faith in the Bible, critics say, blinds creationists to scientific progress and hinders science. Thus, Hatisjorg and Wolfgang Hemminger wrote in their book against creationism:

‘Today’s Creationism … turns against the great Christian naturalists of the 15th and 16th century, against Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton. It repeats the proceeding against Galileo and argues in principle with the Inquisitors, for the issue at the trial was, among other things, whether the natural scientist had the freedom to set experimentation and observation above Scripture … . Today’s Creationists in principle have the same standpoint as the Inquisitors because they follow their empirical-biblicistic method.’1

This, of course, is nonsense. Galileo was a scientist who believed in the trustworthiness of the Bible and sought to show that the Copernican (heliocentric) system was compatible with it. He was fighting against the contemporary principles of Bible interpretation which, blinded by Aristotelian philosophy, did not do justice to the biblical text. Galileo was not blamed for criticising the Bible but for disobeying papal orders. Today, most creation scientists read the Bible differently from the contemporary school of biblical interpretation, i.e. higher criticism, and therefore are criticised by the liberal theological establishment and by natural scientists.

The picture of the Vatican process against Galileo Galilei, used by the Hemmingers and others, is not drawn from historical research but from heroic hagiography. The picture of a life-and-death battle between a completely narrow-minded Christian church and an ingenious and always objective natural science in the Galileo affair depends on too many legends.

Examples of hagiographies on Galileo that are full of legends are the biographies of the anthroposophical author, Johannes Hemleben,2 the official Galileo biography of the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany) by Ernst Schmutzer and Wilhelm Schultz,3 and the chapter on Galileo in Fischer-Fabian’s book The Power of Conscience.4

There are many examples of a virtually religious, ‘adoration’ of Galileo5 in juvenile6 as well as in academic literature.7

I know of only one printed exhaustive answer by a creationist (in the broad sense) to the misuse of Galileo’s trial by evolutionists. This appears in The Doorway Papers by the gap theorist Arthur C. Custance.8 An even more extended comment by creationists on the Galileo affair is necessary. This article will give a first evaluation and list important literature, but can only help to start discussion. Koestler is right when he states, ‘Few episodes in history have given rise to a literature as voluminous as the trial of Galileo.’9

In view of more than 8,000 titles on the Galileo affair and the 20 volumes of the complete works of Galileo himself, one article cannot discuss all aspects of the whole issue.

The following 15 theses will show why the Galileo affair cannot serve as an argument for any position on the relation of religion and science. I will mainly follow Galileo’s own writings,10 the biography by K. Fischer,11 A. Koestler’s research on the original documents of the Galileo process,12 the essay by A.C. Custance8 and the scientific research of the Czech author Zdenko Solle.13

The intent of the theses can be summarised with Koestler’s judgment, ‘I believe the idea that Galileo’s trial was a kind of Greek tragedy, a showdown between “blind faith” and “enlightened reason”, to be naively erroneous.’14

It goes without saying that these theses do not intend to defend the Inquisition or aim at denying any of the scientific value of Galileo’s thinking or research. But Solle is correct, when he writes, ‘The picture full of contrast, showing a heroic scientist in front of the dark background of Inquisition will develop many different nuances.’15

Thesis 1. The Copernican system was well regarded by church officials
An open defence of the Copernican system was, in principle, without danger. The Ptolemaic system had been denied by many high officials and Jesuit astronomers even before Galileo was born. As the example of the Imperial Court astronomer, Johannes Kepler (1571–1630),16 proves, many of them followed the Copernican system.

‘The Jesuits themselves were more Copernican than Galileo was; it is now well recognized that the reason why Chinese astronomy advanced more rapidly than European astronomy was simply because Jesuit missionaries communicated to them their Copernican views.’17

‘While Martin Luther called the author of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium [i.e. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543)] a “fool”, which will turn “the whole art of Astronomiae upside down”, the book had not been fought by the Vatican. It was seen as a “mathematical hypothesis”, but had already been used as an aid in astronomical calculations for a long time. Only some time after leading Jesuit scientists like Pater Clavius had agreed to the trustworthiness of Galileo’s observations, did Copernicus and his followers become “suspicious”.’18

The book by Copernicus was not placed on the Vatican Index19 until 1616 to 1620 and was readmitted to the public after some minor changes.20 Only Galileo’s Dialogo remained on the Index from 1633 till 1837.21

Thesis 2. Galileo was well regarded by the church
Until the trial against him, Galileo stood in high esteem among the Holy See, the Jesuits and especially the popes of his lifetime. His teachings were celebrated. Galileo’s visit to Rome in 1611, after he had published his Messenger from the Stars, ‘was a triumph.’22 ‘Pope Paul V welcomed him in friendly audience, and the Jesuit Roman College honoured him with various ceremonies which lasted a whole day.’23 Jean Pièrre Maury writes about this visit:

‘Now Galileo’s discoveries have been acknowledged by the greatest astronomical and religious authorities of his time. Pope Paul V received him in private audience and showed him so much reverence, that he did not allow him to kneel down in front of him, as was usual. Some weeks later the whole Collegio Romano gathered in the presence of Galileo officially to celebrate his discoveries. At the same time, Galileo met all the Roman intellectuals, and one of the most famous among them, Prince Federico des Cesi, asked him to become the sixth member of the Accademia dei Lincei (Academy of the Lynxes), which he had founded.’24

Galileo’s first written statement in favour of the Copernican system, his Letters on Sunspots, was met with much approval and no critical voice was heard. Among the cardinals who congratulated Galileo was Cardinal Barberini, who later became Pope Urban VIII and would sentence him in 1633.25 In 1615, an accusation against Galileo was filed but denied by the Court of Inquisition. From 1615 till 1632, Galileo enjoyed the friendship of many cardinals and the different popes.26

Thesis 3. Envy, not religion, was the trigger
The battle against Galileo was not started by Catholic officials, but by Galileo’s colleagues and scientists, who were afraid of losing their position and influence. The representatives of the church were much more open to the Copernican system than were the scientists and Galileo’s colleagues. Galileo avoided and delayed an open confession in favour of the Copernican system in fear of his immediate and other colleagues, not in fear of any part of the church.27

This was already true of Copernicus himself. Gerhard Prause summarises the situation:

‘Not in fear of those above him in the Church—as is often wrongly stated—but because he was afraid to be “laughed at and to be hissed off the stage”—as he formulated it himself—by the university professor, did he refuse to publish his work “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” for more than 38 years. Only after several Church officials, especially Pope Clemens VII had requested it, did Copernicus finally decide to publish his work.’28

Only a few scientists living in Galileo’s time confessed publicly that they followed Copernicus. Some did so secretly, but most denied the Copernican system.29

‘Thus, while the poets were celebrating Galileo’s discoveries which had become the talk of the world, the scholars in his own country were, with a few exceptions, hostile or sceptical. The first, and for some time the only, scholarly voice raised in public in defence of Galileo, was Johannes Kepler’s.’30

Beside this, the church represented not only the interests of theologians but also the interests of those scientists who were part of the orders of the church. The Order of the Jesuits, who were behind the trial against Galileo, included the leading scientists of that day.

Galileo’s case confronts us with the heaviness and clumsiness of scientific changes due to the social habits of the scientific community, which Thomas Kuhn has described in his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. More than once, it was not the church hindering scientific progress but the scientific community!

Thesis 4. Genius + arrogance – humility = deadly enemies
Galileo was a very obstinate, overly-sensitive and aggressive scientist, who created many deadly enemies by his harsh polemics even among those who no longer followed the Ptolemaic worldview. Galileo had already earned the nickname ‘the wrangler’ during his student days 31 Koestler shows repeatedly that this personal aspect of many of Galileo’s battles made it impossible for other scientists to work with him.32

‘Galileo had a rare gift of provoking enmity; not the affection alternating with rage which Tycho aroused, but the cold, unrelenting hostility which genius plus arrogance minus humility creates among mediocrities. Without the personal background, the controversy which followed the publication of the Sidereus Nuncius33 would remain incomprehensible.’34

Koestler adds more generally:

‘His method was to make a laughing stock of his opponent—in which he invariably succeeded, whether he happened to be in the right or in the wrong. … It was an excellent method to score a moment’s triumph, and make a life long enemy.’35

Solle states it similarly, ‘Galileo was not afraid of personal attacks and mockery against others, but this was the easiest way to create enemies.’36

Koestler comments on an immoderate answer by Galileo against an anti-Ptolemaic writing of the leading Jesuit astronomer Horatio Grassi:

‘When Galileo read the treatise, he had an outburst of fury. He covered its margins with exclamations like “piece of asininity”, “elephantine”, “buffoon”, “evil poltroon”, and “ungrateful villain”. The ingratitude consisted in the fact that the treatise did not mention Galileo’s name—whose only contribution to the theory of comets has been a casual endorsement of Tycho’s views in the Letters on Sunspots.’37

Fischer comments on the same event:

‘It is hard to decide what the most remarkable side of this debate is: the open proceeding of the Jesuits against the Aristotelian physics of the heavens, the almost devout bowing of Horatio Grassi before Galileo’s authority, Galileo’s measureless aggressiveness, which destroyed everything that Grassi had said, or Galileo’s ingenius rhetoric, which he used with a great skill against Grassi and Brahe, so that especially Grassi seemed to be a pitiable figure, who did not know what he was talking about …’38

Koestler writes on a vile and vulgar writing by Galileo against B. Capra:

‘In his later polemical writings, Galileo’s style progressed from coarse invective to satire, which was sometimes cheap, often subtle, always effective. He changed from the cudgel to the rapier, and achieved a rare mastery at it … .’39

As an example of Galileo’s oversensibility, Custance mentions his reaction against the rumour that a seventy year old Dominican had cast doubts on his thesis in a private conversation. Galileo wrote a harsh letter and called him to account. The Dominican answered that he was too old and would not have enough knowledge to judge Galileo’s thesis, and that he had only made some private remarks in a conversation in order not to be called ignorant. Galileo still felt that he had been ‘attacked.’40

Thesis 5. Galileo refused to share discoveries
Galileo ignored all other researchers, did not inform them about his discoveries, and believed that he alone made scientifically relevant discoveries. As a result of this attitude, some of Galileo’s condemned teachings were already out of date, especially because of the progress made by Kepler.

‘Judging by Galileo’s correspondence and other records of his opinion of himself he was fantastically selfish intellectually and almost unbelievably conceited. As an illustration of the former there is the now well-known fact that he refused to share with his colleagues or with acquaintances [such] as Kepler any of his own findings or insights; he actually claimed to be the only one who ever would make any new discovery! In writing to an acquaintance he expressed himself as follows: “You cannot help it, Mr. Sarsi, that it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else. This is the truth which neither malice nor envy can suppress”.’41

Galileo’s relationship to Johannes Kepler is a good example of this and the arguments contained in Thesis 4. Galileo had shared his belief in the Copernican system with Kepler at an early stage of their acquaintance and Kepler had blindly, without proofs, accepted Galileo’s book Messenger from the Stars.42 But Galileo refused to give Kepler one of his telescopes, although he gave them to many political heads of the world.43 It was not until the Duke of Bavaria lent him one that Kepler could use a Galilean telescope.44 Galileo wrote his discoveries to Kepler only in anagrams, so that Kepler could not understand them, but Galileo later could prove that these were his discoveries.45 After this, Galileo broke off all further contact with Kepler. He totally ignored Kepler’s famous book Astronomia Nova with the vital proposal of elliptical orbits, even though it was only a further development of Copernicus and of Galileo’s discoveries46 (cf. Thesis 10).

‘For it must be remembered that the system which Galileo advocated was the orthodox Copernican system, designed by the Canon himself, nearly a century before Kepler threw out the epicycles and transformed the abstruse paper construction into a workable mechanical model. Incapable of acknowledging that any of his contemporaries had a share in the progress of astronomy, Galileo blindly and indeed suicidally ignored Kepler’s work to the end, persisting in the futile attempt to bludgeon the world into accepting a Ferris wheel with forty-eight epicycles as “rigorously demonstrated” physical reality.’47

Thesis 6. Galileo was a bad witness in his own defence
Galileo contradicted himself not only during the trial. In oral discussion he denied the Copernican system, which he had defended in earlier writings. Koestler writes about Galileo’s defence during the trial:

‘To pretend, in the teeth of the evidence of the printed pages of his books, that it said the opposite of what it did, was suicidal folly. Yet Galileo had had several month’s respite in which to prepare his defence. The explanation can only be sought in the quasi-pathological contempt Galileo felt for his contemporaries. The pretence that the Dialogo was written in refutation of Copernicus was so patently dishonest that his case would have been lost in any court.’48

‘If it had been the Inquisition’s intention to break Galileo, this obviously was the moment to confront him with the copious extracts from his books—which were in the files in front of the judge—to quote to him what he had said about the sub-human morons and pygmies who were opposing Copernicus, and to convict him of perjury. Instead, immediately following Galileo’s last answer, the minutes of the trial say: “And as nothing further could be done in execution of the decree, his signature was obtained to his deposition and he was sent back.” Both the judges and the defendant knew that he was lying, both the judge and he knew that the threat of torture (territio verbalis) was merely a ritual formula, which could not be carried out … .’49

But these discrepancies and even hypocrisy can be found during the whole of Galileo’s life. In the beginning, about 1604/1605, when a highly visible supernova soon became weaker, and it was not possible to demonstrate parallax any longer, Galileo sometimes even doubted the Copernican system himself.50 In 1613, in his 50th year, Galileo for the first time stated in print his conviction that it was true. But in 1597 he had stated the same in a private letter to Kepler. For 16 years ‘in his lectures he not only taught the old astronomy of Ptolemy, but denied Copernicus explicitly.’51 This was the case even though there would have been no danger at all in presenting the Copernican system.52

He confessed his belief in Copernicus in private discussions and letters only. Several authors have correctly explained this by his fear of mockery from other scientists. Only after Galileo had become famous through his discoveries in the area of mechanics, dynamics and optics, did he admit his Copernican position in print.

Fischer indicates that Galileo could occasionally write things contrary to his own opinion,53 namely in order to harm other people.

Thesis 7. Experimentation not necessary
Galileo was not a strictly experimental scientist. Fischer writes on Galileo’s book De Motu (‘On motion’):

‘One can doubt whether Galileo had made many experiments to prove his theories. If that had been the case, it is hard to understand why he never changed his position that light objects are accelerated faster in the beginning of their natural motion than heavier ones. According to Galileo’s own understanding, such tests were neither necessary to prove his theory nor enough to disprove it. His proceeding was axiomatically orientated.’54

Koestler refers to Professor Burtt, who assumes that it was mainly those who stressed empirical research who did not follow the new teaching because of its lack of proof (cf. Thesis 8).

‘Contemporary empiricists, had they lived in the sixteenth century, would have been the first to scoff out of court the new philosophy of the universe.’55

Thesis 8. No need for proof
Galileo always acted as if he had all the proofs, but did not, and could not, present them, as he said, because no one else was intelligent enough to understand them. Koestler writes, ‘He employs his usual tactics of refuting his opponent’s thesis without proving his own.’56

As Galileo did not work empirically (cf. Thesis 7), but regarded the Copernican system as an axiom, he did not feel the need for proofs. Not until he was put under pressure because he presented the Copernican system as proven, did he get into difficulties.

When Cardinal Bellarmine, who was responsible for the Court of Inquisition, asked Galileo in a friendly way for his proofs, so that he could accept his theory as proven theory, and asked him otherwise to present his Copernican theory as hypothesis only, Galileo answered in a harsh letter, that he was not willing to present his evidences, because no one could really understand them. Koestler comments on this:

‘How can he refuse to produce proof and at the same time demand that the matter should be treated as if proven? The solution of the dilemma was to pretend that he had the proof, but to refuse to produce it, on the grounds that his opponents were too stupid, anyway, to understand.’57

Galileo reacted in a similar way after the pope himself asked for proofs.58

Koestler writes about an earlier letter from 1613, ‘But Galileo did not want to bear the burden of proof; for the crux of the matter is, as will be seen, that he had no proof.’59

Virtually all researchers agree that Galileo had no physical proof for his theory.60 Some parts of Galileo’s theory could even not be proven at all because they were wrong and already outdated by Kepler’s research (cf. Theses 10 and 5).

Fischer summarizes, ‘He did not have really convincing proofs such as the parallax shift or Foucault’s pendulum.’61

One must not forget that the Copernican hypothesis itself was never denied by the Inquisition, but only that it was not allowed to be presented as a scientifically proven theory or as a truth. ‘In fact, however, there never had been any question of condemning the Copernican system as a working hypothesis.’62 The Copernican system was just ‘an officially tolerated working hypothesis, awaiting proof.’63

As Galileo came more and more under pressure, he finally invented a ‘secret weapon,’64 the totally erroneous theory that the tides were caused by the turning of the earth per se. This easily disprovable theory was said to be the absolute secure proof of the Copernican system!65

‘The whole idea was in such glaring contradiction to fact, and so absurd as a mechanical theory—the field of Galileo’s own immortal achievements—that its conception can only be explained in psychological terms.’66

William A. Wallace used recently discovered manuscripts to show67 that Galileo knew exactly that the final proof for the Copernican system was lacking and that he was covering this under his rhetoric. Jean Dietz Moss has researched this kind of rhetoric68 and clearly identifies how Galileo’s own texts show that Galileo knew that he had to fill the missing evidence with rhetoric.

Thesis 9. Ptolemy was no longer an issue
In Galileo’s time, science did not have to decide between Ptolemy and Copernicus. Ptolemy’s view that all planets and the sun orbited the earth, was no longer a real option. Rather it is important, ‘that the choice now lay between Copernicus and Brahe,’69 because everybody believed that other planets orbited the sun. The question was, whether or not the earth was moving itself or was staying in the centre of the universe. ‘Nearly no expert believed in Ptolemaic astronomy any longer. The conflict was between Tycho Brahe and Copernicus.’70

Tycho Brahe, predecessor of Kepler as German Imperial Court astronomer, held to the central position of the earth, while at the same time integrating the observation of the other planets moving around the sun.

‘The arguments and observations which Galileo referred to, were acknowledged, but they denied only the Ptolemaic system, but did not favor in the same way the Copernican system. They were compatible with the Tychonian system, which had the advantage that the central position of the earth was maintained.’71

Galileo never took a position on this issue nor presented arguments against Tycho Brahe with the exception of his polemical and totally distorted description of Brahe’s system in his work against Horatio Grassi.72

Thesis 10. Galileo defended outdated hypotheses
Galileo fought very stubbornly not only for the Copernican system but also for several hypotheses that were out of date and a relapse into the old system. Elaboration of this thesis is already contained in Theses 5, 8 and 9. Galileo defended the ‘epicycloids’ of Copernicus, even though Kepler already had presented a much better theory.73

His already mentioned erroneous explanation of the tides was used as his major proof for the Copernican system, even though it was untenable and Kepler had discovered the real cause of the tides in the power of attraction of the moon.74

In 1618, Galileo explained some visible comets in a fiery work as reflexions of light, so that nobody believed the Jesuit astronomer Grassi, who realised that the comets were flying bodies.75

Many further examples have been discussed by Koestler and Fischer.76

Thesis 11. Galileo was a victim of personal circumstance
This thesis discusses the personal aspect, the following thesis the political one, although it is not easy to distinguish between them.

Under Pope Urban’s (VIII) predecessor and his successor no trial against Galileo would have taken place (see Theses 3 and 15). Galileo was the victim of the politics of Pope Urban VIII, who had been very much in favour of him earlier. We should not forget that in 1615, a first trial against Galileo before the Court of Inquisition was decided in favour of Galileo, because of benevolent expert evidence of the leading Jesuit astronomers.77

Galileo was prosecuted because of the political situation and his personal attacks on the pope, never for religious reasons. The pope had initiated the proceedings, while the Court of Inquisition calmed the whole matter down instead of stirring up the flames.

Galileo’s process took place under a ruthless and cruel pope. A dictionary on the popes says, ‘Within the Church the pontificate of Urban was burdened with unlimited nepotism. Urban VIII was a tragic figure on the papal throne. His reign was full of failures, for which he was himself responsible.’78

Koestler writes at the end of his description of Pope Urban VIII, the former Cardinal Barberini, who for Koestler was ‘cynical, vainglorious, and lusting for secular power.’79 He

‘was the first Pope to allow a monument to be erected to him in his lifetime. His vanity was indeed monumental, and conspicuous even in an age which had little use for the virtue of modesty. His famous statement that he “knew better than all the Cardinals put together” was only equalled by Galileo’s that he alone had discovered everything new in the sky. They both considered themselves supermen and started on a basis of mutual adulation—a type of relationship which, as a rule, comes to a bitter end.’80

This pope also was a danger to science. ‘The Pope paralysed scientific life in Italy. The center of the new research came to the Protestant countries in the North.’81

Thus the Galileo affair was mainly an intra-Catholic and intra-ltalian problem, and not a gigantic battle between Christianity as such and science as such. The Court of Inquisition did not accuse Galileo of teaching against the Bible, but of disobeying a papal decree.

Urban VIII had favoured Galileo as cardinal (cf. Thesis 1) and had even written an ode to him. After he had become pope in 1623, his affection for Galileo even increased.82

Only a short time before the trial, Urban’s friendship turned into hatred. This was not only due to the political situation (cf. Thesis 12), but to Galileo’s personal carelessness, not to say insults. Galileo obtained the right to print his major work Dialogo from the pope personally, with approval to make some minor corrections if necessary. Galileo cleverly circumvented papal censorship, and put Urban’s main argument for the Copernican system (!) into the mouth of the fool ‘Simplicio,’ who, in the Dialogo of three scientists, always asks the silly questions and defends the Ptolemaic view of the world.

‘But it did not require much Jesuit cunning to turn Urban’s perilous adulation into the fury of the betrayed lover. Not only had Galileo gone, in letter and spirit, against the agreement to treat Copernicus strictly as a hypothesis, not only had he obtained the imprimatur by methods resembling sharp practice, but Urban’s favorite argument was only mentioned briefly at the very end of the book, and put into the mouth of the simpleton who on any other point was invariably proved wrong. Urban even suspected that Simplicius was intended as a caricature of his own person. This, of course, was untrue; but Urban’s suspicion persisted long after his fury had abated … .’83

L. Pastor, a defender of papal infallibility, has tried to show that the pope only played a minor role in Galileo’s trial and that the (anonymous) Inquisition judged harsher than the pope, as a good friend of Galileo’s, would have liked them to do.84 Solle has given convincing proof that, in reality, it was just the other way round.85 The pope initiated the trial for personal reasons, while the Inquisitors were quite lax. Some of the ten judges seem to have been mainly interested in their own forthcoming, while others applied the brakes. In the end, the final decision lacked three signatures, at least two of them out of protest. The only cardinal who zealously pushed the trial forward was the pope’s brother.

‘That the whole trial was questionable could not be hidden to insiders. There was much resistance by high Church officials and from the Jesuit party.’86

Koestler also comes to the conclusion that the pope initiated the process and ‘There is little doubt that the decision to instigate proceedings was Urban VIII’s, who felt that Galileo had played a confidence trick on him.’87

Thesis 12. Galileo was a victim of political circumstance
Galileo was the victim of the politics of Pope Urban VIII, whose tactics in the Thirty Years’ War were totally confused. He tried to bring the Italian cities under his control and fought against all opposition within the Catholic Church. He failed in all of this in 1644, although he had made some progress in the beginning.

The situation in the Holy See was totally dependent on the political battles of the times. Solle writes:

‘The council of the General-Inquisitors became a reflexion of the battles between the different parties within the Church. Neither under Borgia nor under Urban was the issue astronomy or the faith of the Church, but always politics.’88

‘We have to return to the political situation in Rome, which led to the transformation of an unpolitical astronomer into a criminal.’89

Fischer holds a similar viewpoint:

‘Now the care for the people’s souls surely was not the only motive for the Church’s actions. The Thirty Years’ War had begun in 1618 and finished the time of verbal debate. The Church found itself in the hardest battle over its existence since its earliest history.’90

In the beginning, Pope Urban VIII supported the Catholic German Emperor, but switched over to Catholic France and Protestant Sweden after the two had become allies. He took as an example the ruthless French Cardinal Richelieu and was responsible for the prolongation of the war.

In 1627–1630, Italy underwent the additional Mantuan War of Succession. At the same time the two Catholic powers, Spain and France, which were both allies of the pope, started to fight each other. The head of the Spanish opposition in the Holy See, Cardinal Borgia, came into conflict with the pope over political topics in 1632, because a peace treaty was in view, while the pope wanted the war to go on.91 A tumult among the cardinals resulted, after which the pope began a great political purge in the Vatican, which more or less by chance struck all those favourable to Galileo.92 The pope initiated many trials by the Inquisition and became an increasingly cruel ruler.

The following connections probably became fateful to Galileo, because they were in opposition to those of the pope:

The close connection to the family of the Medicis, from which the Tuscan prince came, and which, together with Venice,93 fought against the pope and were only rehabilitated after his death in 1644;94

The connexion with Austria95 and Emperor Rudolf II through Kepler, as the pope together with France and Sweden fought against the Catholic German Emperor. The Prince of Tuscany and the German Emperor were close friends.96

Solle has shown in detail that it was the beginning of ‘modem’ nationalism which left Galileo between the fronts of the nationalistic pope, the Italian cities and the parties of the Thirty Years’ War.97

‘Thus it was not the shadow of a dying and dark night, which put pressure on the scientist [i.e. Galileo] … but the beginning of modern times.’98

Hemleben, who favours Galileo, has argued that he would not have had to undergo any trial if he had not moved from Padua to Florence, since Padua depended on Venice, but Florence on Rome.99 Padua allowed great freedom for scientific research, because Venice was independent of Rome.100 Even protestants studied there,101 which was impossible in Florence. One of Galileo’s best friends, Giovanni Francesco Sagredo (1571–1620), had already warned Galileo in 1611 against moving to Florence, because there he would be dependent on international politics and on the Jesuits.102 But Galileo ignored this and all later warnings.

Thesis 13. Galileo predeceased Urban VIII
Galileo died in 1642, two years before the death of his great enemy, Pope Urban VIII, in 1644. Following Urban’s death the whole situation in Italy changed and the family of the Medicis came back to honour. Galileo would surely have been rehabilitated (cf. Thesis 12).103

Thesis 14. Galileo did not reject his faith
Galileo was not a non-Christian scientist of the Enlightenment, but a convinced Catholic.104 It was indeed his endeavour to show the compatibility of his teachings with the Bible that, among other things, brought him into conflict with the Catholic establishment.

Galileo’s thoughts on the relation of faith and science can be seen in the quotations cited by Fischer under Thesis 7. Solle adds:

‘As a deeply believing scientist, Galileo could not live with a discrepancy between science and faith, which seemed to arise when he started to interpret the Bible. As layman, he experienced much resistance by theologians … His attempts to interpret the Bible were one of the reasons which led to the trial. Another reason was his attempt to popularize the Copernican system.’105

Because Galileo interpreted the Bible as a layman and wrote his books in everyday Italian, and thus was a forerunner of Italian nationalism (cf. Thesis 15), he experienced the same resistance Martin Luther had experienced one hundred years earlier when he started to use German in his theological writings.

The preface of his major work Dialogo contains clear statements that Galileo did not want to stand in opposition to the Bible106 or to the Catholic Church. Albrecht Folsing writes:

‘Many of Galileo’s admirers in the 19th and 20th century could understand this preface only as a concession to censorship. Some interpreted it as a roguish bypassing of the Decree, others as unworthy submission, again others as a mockery of the authority of the Church … . We, on the other hand, want to suggest this text to be an authentic expression of Galileo’s intention under the existing conditions. The content is more or less the same as in the introduction to the letter to Ignoli in 1624, which needed no approval from a censor, as it was not written for print, but which was intended to test how much freedom for scientific discussion the Pope and the Roman See would allow. Even if one takes into account those tactical aspects of these texts (the letter of 1624 and the preface to the Dialogo) there is no reason to doubt the honest intentions of the faithful Catholic Galileo.’107

As a defender of papal infallibility, L. Pastor has stated that the pope saw a protestant danger in Galileo, but others have doubted this.108 On the one hand, one of Galileo’s first critics was a protestant pastor from Bohemia;109 on the other hand, Galileo’s writings were published and printed in protestant states and thus became known. Besides, Galileo himself was a declared enemy of protestantism.110

Thesis 15. Galileo stood for science and faith
Galileo was not a scientist who denied any metaphysics or favoured the separation of faith and science (cf. Thesis 14). Discussing a quotation in Galileo’s Letters on Sunspots, Fischer speaks in more general terms:

‘In those last sentences, one can hear a somewhat different Galileo from the picture of Galileo which the traditional interpretation paints. The main line of the historiographs of science from Wohlwill to Drake presents Galileo as an anti-metaphysician and anti-philosopher, as the initiator of a physics based on experiment and observation, as the defender of science against the illegitimate demands of religion, as the promoter of a separation of faith and science. And now we hear a confession of love to the great Creator being the final goal of all our work, thus including our scientific work! Science as perception of God’s truth! … The ruling historiographers of science cannot be freed from the reproach that they have read Galileo’s writings too selectively.’111

A little later Fischer writes about the misinterpretation of Galileo’s work:

‘This misinterpretation led to the inability to evaluate correctly Galileo’s early writings (‘Juvenilia’), to ignoring many sections with speculative and metaphysical content scattered all over Galileo’s writings, yea, even to a misinterpretation of Galileo’s understanding of the relationship between science and faith … .’112

Thomas Schirrmacher is professor of ethics and world missions at several American seminaries and rector of Martin Bucer Seminary in Bonn. He earned his doctorates in Theology (Dr.Theol., 1985, Netherlands), Cultural Anthropology (PhD, 1989, USA) and Ethics (ThD, 1996, USA) and received an honorary doctorate (DD) in 1997 (USA). He is also the pastor of the Free Reformed Church in Bonn. He is married to Christine and they have two children. Return to top.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.