Replies

Apparently your knowledge of History is about as good as your knowledge of Evolution.

You said "People too easily become mental slaves to "conventional scientific wisdom". It wasn't too long ago that conventional scientific wisdom stated that the world was flat."

Only if you consider the ancient Greeks to be "too long ago". Heck, according to young earthers that's almost half the age of the universe.

The Alexandrian philosopher Eratosthenes not only knew the world was spherical; he took a measure of its circumference.

It was this measurement that Christopher Columbus argued with; not against the notion that the world was flat. In fact Columbus was wrong, and Eratosthenes made a quite accurate measure.

If one is applying the Scientific method, the model of the flat earth isn't that bad, your only off by less than a foot per mile, that inaccuracy just keeps piling up in the same sloping direction.

More importantly, if your using the Scientific method, one is open to discussing that inaccuracy and willing to entertain other, more accurate, models. Such as the spherical earth. Turns out that the spherical earth theory is also inaccurate; the earth is flatter at one end. So we are now with the "misshapen sphere" model, and it is the most accurate yet.

If one is using the "Creationist method" rather than the Scientific method, one would quote the "four corners of the Earth" part of the Bible and be unwilling to change their model, and burn anyone at the stake who suggested that the Earth was not flat and/or the immovable center of the universe.

Giovanni Bruno, who reminds me of the Italian journalist who was killed by Islamofascist scum whose last words were "Now I show you how an Italian dies!"; was burned for just such an offense. His last words were "Nonetheless IT MOVES!" So does conventional scientific wisdom, and it moves to a more accurate model.

His last words were "Nonetheless IT MOVES!"

I've heard that those were the words supposedly muttered by Galileo, not Bruno, after his heresy confession, as they hauled him off to live under house arrest for the remainder of his life. It's a good story either way.
The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633. The heresy confession.
Trial of Galileo Galilei in 1633.

As for Eratosthenes, yes, he computed the size of the earth. But before him, it was Aristotle who concluded that it had to be a sphere. This was based on his observations of lunar eclipses, during which the earth's shadow was always a circular disk. From this, he concluded that earth was a sphere, because that's the only geometric shape that always casts a circular shadow.

Before the Greeks, there was no science, so scientists never thought the world was flat. But creationists love to tell it wrong, so they can tell themselves that they're not the only goofballs around. Sorry, but they're wrong. As usual.

Maybe Eratosthenes learned that the earth was round from the Bible. Isaiah 40:22 states that the earth is round. Given that Alexandria is where the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament was produced, it would not have been far fetched. It seems that the scholars of Alexandria had a higher regard for the Bible than those of today.

Another nice bit of scientific foreknowledge is contained in Leviticus 17 where the principle that the life is in the blood. Whether you believe Moses wrote that or whether is was written by J, E or double naught, that is pretty impressive. Too bad George Washington's doctors didn't consult that before they bled George toward death. It would not be the last time that learned doctors disdained the Bible.

More importantly, if your using the Scientific method, one is open to discussing that inaccuracy and willing to entertain other, more accurate, models.

Do you know how much theological and popular (let alone scientific) credibility the flat earth model has enjoyed throughout history? Without question if science is open to discussion it will not altogether discount intelligent design as an agent in creating and sustaining the universe as we know it. The model actually fits well inasmuch as aggregations of matter with function and purpose have sprung up down to the molecule, DNA being a case in point.

I will be the first to admit certain proponents of theology are capable of erring both in their understanding of biblical texts and ther lack of appreciation for the physical sciences. I would only think it reasonable for science to speak with certainty concerning matter it knows, and with some qualification in matters of reasonable conjecture.