> Actually I agree here. It is PRECISELY like what the medieval's did. But
> they didn't assume geocentrism either. The ancient peoples looked at the
> evidence before their eyes and saw the sun moving. They didn't feel their
> own motion so they believed that they were stationary. When they moved in
> a cart, they felt motion, jerks and stops etc. Since there was none of
> that when planted on the ground, they used this observational data to draw
> the conclusion they did. it was quite reasonable.
>
> Only when subsequent observational data contradicted the common sense view
> were they forced into heliocentrism. The only thing Christians did wrong
> was to resist observational evidence. Prior to the astronomical data, it
> was quite reasonable to believe in geocentrism, just like prior to the
> latter half of last century when the data became available, it was
> reasonable to believe that animals didn't evolve. It is no longer so
> reasonable to fight against evolution any more than it is reasonable to
> fight against heliocentrism.
Nicely argued Glenn.
I wonder if Jesus' words in Matthew 11:21 have application here?
"Woe to You Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were
performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would
repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."
The general principle that seems to emerge is that the more evidence
one has the greater the judgement when one fails to to be led by
it. If God's judgment also applies to the way we handle scientific
evidence, it should sober us up a bit. Instead of dismissing the
evidence of transitions between reptiles and mammals, say, in the cavalier
way I see many anti-evolutionists do, we would examine it carefully
to make sure we have heard what God is saying through the fossil record.
Mike