[edsheppa]

I think he was trying to account for discrepancies between the accepted theory of the day and observations. But as I mentioned, the geocentric view can be patched up, at the cost of some complexity, as in the Tychonic system. Certainly, before Kepler came up with elliptical orbits, neither theory was especially accurate and Copernicus had to add on epicycles just like the older theory. The essential difference between Tycho and Copernicus was whether or not the earth moved.

As I also mentioned, the Copernican theory had another benefit in that it could explain the seasons. It was not without its deficits though. For example, if the earth moves, not only why don't we feel it, but also why don't the stars appear to shift position due to the earth's motion? Now of course we know they do and their great distance is why they don't appear to, but it wasn't obvious at the time.

[Fester Chugabrew]

At bottom, it seems good science is willing to shuck a world of givens against natural reason and senses. Are dogmatic evolutionists able to divest themselves entirely of "givens?" I don't think so. I don't think any scientist can. If not, which ones do they operate with? I'd like to hear it from one of their own so as to avoid constructing an innaccurate understanding for myself.

By dogmatic evolutionist I mean someone who rejects out of hand the possibility of any basis in "knowledge" for the application of intelligent design in bringing about what is commonly referred to as "the natural world," and thus rejects out of hand any place in the classroom for discussion of the same.

This whole debate would not exist of everyone operated with the same givens. I count it as evidence that man is created in the image of God because he can operate intellectually from more than one point of view, and even "call things that are not as though they are."

[Doctor Stochastic]

Copernican theory also allows one to derive the law that "things further out move more slowly" which is false for geocentric systems.