[Iscool]

Once you have got it into your head that your interpretation is “God's word” or “God's teaching” and that science is only “man's word” or “man's teaching” then what recourse do you have to change a dogma that is obviously in error, like the Earth not moving and the Sun being in orbit around it?

Seems to me that the scientists of the day determined that the sun rotated around the earth...

Eventually they revised their theory to line up with Scripture...

[allmendream]

Revisionist history, typical of creationism when they encounter facts they are unable to deal with.

The majority of the Christian world, pre Copernicus, believed the Sun was in orbit around the Earth, and they based this not via utilization of the scientific method, but clearly they based it upon Scriptural justification. Their arguments at the time are filled with such scriptural justifications for an immobile and central Earth.

The majority of the Christian world abandoned Geocentrism, not based upon a better understanding of Scripture, but upon a better understanding of and observations of the natural world that INFORMED their interpretation of scripture.

The crux of the matter comes down to this, do you consider physical reality subordinate to your interpretation of scripture; or are you willing to accept in the face of reproducibly demonstrated reality that your assumptions and interpretations as to the meaning of Scripture might be in error.

The majority of the Christian world, post Copernicus, accepted that their assumption and interpretation as to the meaning of Scripture that made them think the Earth was central and immobile were in error. Do you think they were wrong to do so?