Ptolemaic Mathematical Model of Biblical Cosmology
Historians, Astronomers, Mathematicians, Philosophers, and the New Age Scientism…
Is it really a proven scientific fact that the earth rotates on its axis at 1,000 mph. as it races through space at a speed of 66,000 mph. in orbit around the sun? Or is the earth, according to Scripture and verified scientific evidence actually at the center of the universe, stationary, and orbited by the sun, planets and star field? The glorious Biblical and scientifically validated truth set forth herein is sure to challenge the mythical heliocentric status quo and possibly your worldview as well. The tragic repercussion of rejecting the totality of the Scriptures as the perfect and authoritative standard of all reality, knowledge, ethics and beauty is that man will of necessity be relegated to grope in darkness as he vainly seeks to acquire certain knowledge independent of the Creator. Moreover, the Bible declares that all those who reject the self-attesting authority of God’s word will be given over to some degree of deception. This absolute spiritual truth is manifest in our day by the fact that “folly is set in great dignity” (Eccl 10:6). Case in point: What could be more laughable than evolution? What could be more barbaric than abortion? What could be more perverted than sodomy? What could be more demonic than Islam? What could be more arbitrary than psychology? Yet these antichrist ideologies are celebrated and promoted in our land and thought to be “normal” and even scientific.
To understand this cultural and epistemological dynamic, one must first understand the primary issue of history. Ultimately there has been only one battle which has raged since the beginning of time, and that is regarding what would be man’s ultimate standard and thus final authority in all things; The word of God or his own autonomous mind.
Thus in every discussion about any topic, the apparent issue of contention is usually not the ultimate issue; unless one is discussing the ultimate issue of course. Please allow me to explain. Whenever we engage anyone in dialogue regarding anything, the real battle of our discussion is not the “issue” but rather what will be the self-attesting final authority by which we will evaluate the facts and arrive at the truth.
For example, consider the abortion debate. The issue is not really pro-choice versus pro-life, but rather who defines and thus governs life; God’s word or man. The real issue in the marriage debate is likewise not heterosexual marriage versus homosexual marriage, but rather is God’s word the perfect and final authority, or does man have the right to autonomously define marriage. The controversy regarding origins and Genesis chapter one is not ultimately a battle between Creationism and Evolutionism or Religion and Science, but rather one regarding the veracity and authority of God’s Word as the only source of truth concerning ultimate issues.
The defining issue of life has always been and still is one regarding Lordship, and there are ultimately only two choices; God or man? Furthermore, one’s God/god is revealed, not by what one professes with his lips, but by his ultimate source of law; God’s word or his autonomous mind. Thus in the final analysis there are only two religions upon earth; Christianity and Humanism. Therefore in every facet of life there is one question to ask, “By what standard” do I form all of my beliefs and live my life. And the answer to that question determines if we will win or lose in the great battle of life.
If my thesis is true then we would expect satan to concentrate his efforts in the realm of final authority, and this is indeed exactly what we see. In his initial engagement with man, he leveled his attack upon God’s word with the question, “Hath God said?” For Adam and Eve, the real issue was thus not the tree of life versus the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but rather the question of what would they look to as their ultimate standard of reality, truth, ethics and beauty; the perfect word of God or their own fallible mind. Satan knew that if he could win this battle, then he would win the war.
However, while many will rightly declare that the Bible is the ultimate authority over all of life, the real issue is whether or not one actually believes the Bible and even more significantly whether or not one allows the Bible is the ultimate authority for the Bible itself. Satan understands this essential foundational aspect and has deceived multitudes who erroneously believe they can either arbitrarily decide which portions they will believe or arrogantly stand in judgment over the Scriptures in correcting its contents. Some are ashamed of its seemingly outdated and “unscientific” teachings and thus succumb to the propaganda of “science falsely so called,” ( I Tim 6:20) which arrogantly calls the Scriptures unscientific. Such is the folly of so called higher criticism. I for one however, am unashamed to cleave to and declare the plain testimony of the perfectly preserved and thus scientifically accurate word of God with child-like simplicity and I boldly mock any and every deviation therefrom.
“But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.” Acts 24:14
For roughly 5,400 years of history man held to a geocentric view of the universe because this was and is the unmistakable testimony of the Scriptures. However, in 1542 Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) insisted that the sun, and not the earth, was worthy to be at the center of the universe and this heliocentric position would over the next one hundred years become the status quo. However, this Copernican Revolution, was not fundamentally scientific in nature but rather theological, for the real revolution was against the perfection and authority of Scripture over every facet of life.
“The reverberations of the Copernican Revolution still ring today, particularly in the realms of politics and theology; for without said revolution, there could be no higher criticism which assumes God is incapable of writing what he meant to say or meaning what he wrote. Without the Copernican Revolution there would be no Marxism in which the state replaces God. Nor could there be any evolutionism with its bigotry and racism and faith that man will eventually evolve to ultimately overpower God. After all, if God cannot be taken literally when he writes of the “rising of the sun,” then how can he be taken literally in writing of the “rising of the Son?” According to ‘science’ both are impossible.” Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D Perhaps you may be tempted to muse, “Is this controversy really that important?’ Indeed it is! For the very character, word and eternal purpose of God in His creation are at stake. Moreover, if one does not understand what God has declared about the nature and position of our world in the universe, how can he even begin to establish a sound “Worldview.” Furthermore, if something is taught in Scripture, it must be important since there are no insignificant or disposable doctrines in the Bible. It was this very posture of fundamentalism which influenced men to wrongly believe that if something was not a salvific fundamental then it was not significant and thus a surrendering of said minors would not affect the foundations. Additionally and most significantly, we must realize that it was on this very issue of geocentricity that satan through “science” challenged God’s word before the eyes of the world.
A Brief Historical Sketch
An important question we should ask is this, “Why did Copernicus come to the conclusion that the sun is the center of the universe?” The answer to this question is to be found, not in the realm of science, but rather in the realm of religion and philosophy. Copernicus was particularly interested in the pagan Greek philosophers, Pythagoras and Aristarchus. Both of these men considered that the sun, being the embodiment of everything good and noble in the universe, should be the center of all of life. Copernicus agreed with his ancient Greek counterparts, and thus devised a heliocentric cosmological model in which the sun was the center of the universe and the stars and planets, including the earth, revolved around it. Although Copernicus’ theory provided explanations for odd phenomena like retrograde motion, it really did not prove that the planets actually orbited the sun.
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), a Renaissance scientist, enthusiastically took up Copernicus’ position. In doing so he attracted the attention of the Inquisition, who demanded that he produce proof for the new system. However, he had no proof, but simply stated that “he could not persuade himself” that the sun moved around the earth, because if it did, it would have to travel at a vast speed. This, however, was not a scientific proof either, and so Galileo was ordered to stop teaching the heliocentric view as fact. Galileo however continued to teach it anyway and was eventually placed under house arrest. Galileo claimed that he had found proof for the Copernican system when he constructed a telescope through which he was able to observe the four moons of Jupiter. Just as Jupiter’s moons circled Jupiter, he said, so the earth and the other planets of the solar system circle the sun. Of course, this did not prove anything except that the moons of Jupiter do indeed go around Jupiter. However, Galileo falsely deduced that his observation necessitated the smaller earth must orbit the larger sun. (It is also of note that a year before Galileo’s death he recanted of his heliocentrism and sided with the Scriptures.)
Tycho Brahe (1546–1601), recognized as one of the greatest observational astronomers of all time, devised a different model to account for these cosmological observations. In his model, he placed the earth at the center of the universe for one reason only: the Bible indicates that that is where it is. Brahe had the sun circling the earth, and the planets circling the sun, and being dragged around with the sun in their orbits, just as Jupiter carries its moons around with it as it orbits the sun. Brahe could satisfactorily account for his observations using this model. Unfortunately, Brahe died before he could publish his findings. He asked his assistant, Johannes Kepler, to publish them for him in terms of his geocentric view. Kepler, however, only partially kept his promise. He described Brahe’s model and showed that all the observations were consistent with it, but he personally preferred Copernicus’s model and came out openly in support of it.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was a giant in scientific history, however it is interesting that Newton wrote more about Bible prophecy and chronology than all his other works combined. Newton’s formulas regarding gravity and motion affirmed the present heliocentric model with the stipulation that there were no forces outside our solar system exerting its influences thereupon. For, according to Newton, if there were other forces outside of our galaxy, a geocentric model could be sustained. “In reality, Newton did not teach that the smaller must go around the larger; rather, he taught that all celestial bodies will revolve around the center of mass. As such, even Newton agreed in his Principia that the earth could occupy the center of mass if all the other bodies in the universe were strategically placed around it so that all their gravitational masses balanced out at the center. In short, this is the scientific basis for geocentrism – the earth is the center of mass for the universe, and thus the universe will revolve around the earth.” Robert Sungenis Through the findings of Ernst Mach (1838-1916) some years later, this erroneous presupposition of Galileo regarding smaller bodies necessarily orbiting larger bodies was discredited. Mach, one of the greatest scientists of the last century, was responsible for introducing the additional necessary influences of the starfield upon our galaxy and thus meeting the stipulation of Newton. In essence Mach proved that due to the gravitational effects of the stars, there was no difference scientifically between a rotating earth and a fixed sun and a fixed earth and a moving sun and starfield, for both were scientifically viable and would produce the same effects upon the earth. Mach was troubled by the fact that there was no sound reason, based on observation, to reject the idea that the earth could be stationary at the centre of the universe. “Obviously it matters little if we think of the earth as turning about on its axis, or if we view it at rest while the fixed stars revolve around it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another.” In other words, according to Mach the two views of geocentrism and heliocentrism were equally valid on the basis of scientific equations and observation.
Ideas Have Consequences
Copernicus was in essence a Humanist who for philosophical reasons posited his deviant theory of heliocentrism which was nothing short of a direct attack upon the Scriptures. This tragic paradigm shift removed the earth from its God given privileged position in the universe, and reduced it to a wandering and insignificant planet hurtling through space. Higher criticism was a direct result of this satanic undermining of the Scriptures scientific accuracy. Upon the heels of the Copernican Revolution came the French Revolution. Not long after came Charles Lyell, who taking advantage of the revolutionary spirit unleashed by Copernicus, attacked Noah’s flood and posited his theory of Uniformitarianism which became the foundation of Darwin’s evolutionary speculations. Darwin confessed that without Copernicus opening the door of higher criticism, his theory never would have seen the light of day. It was then Marx who applied Darwin’s principles to politics and economics as he too acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus. Later came Nietzsche, Hitler, Sanger and others riding the wave of deception unleashed via the Copernican Principle. In the 1920’s Lenin himself expressed his indebtedness to Copernicus for making the world a safe place for Marxism and Communism. And if that is not enough just consider the devastating effects upon society which Einstein’s theory of Relativity has wrought not in the scientific realm only, but in regards to morality and truth. Ideas indeed have consequences, and when the foundation of Scriptural perfection, relevance and authority are undermined, the flood gates of hell are opened upon mankind. “After the [Copernican Revolution], the Bible was no longer considered authoritative in the realms of science, philosophy, and day to day reality. Less than 200 years after surrendering the Bible’s authority in the realm of Physical science, man surrendered it’s spiritual authority at the hands of the German school of higher criticism, a way of criticizing the Bible which is supposedly is based on natural revelation, that is, upon ‘scientific’ principles.”
What saith the Scripture?
When I was first challenged regarding the Biblical truth of geocentricity I laughed at this seemingly unscientific position. However, when I realized I had absolutely no Scripture for my then present heliocentric view I was troubled. Once I saw the clear testimony of Scripture on this subject that was all I needed and I was immediately convinced of this glorious God honoring and Scripture exalting truth.
“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20
The clear testimony of Scripture declares that the earth is indeed stationary, neither revolving on an axis nor orbiting the sun. Furthermore the Scriptures state throughout its testimony that the sun both rises and sets (over 60 verses in the Scriptures), and thus orbits the earth. Not once does the Bible ever refer to the earth as rotating or moving through space. Those who say that the Bible is only recording the “appearance” of the movement of the sun are having to add to the plain meaning of the understanding of the Scriptures. Furthermore such are adopting the same position as liberal critics who have tried to destroy the perfection and authority of the Bible. Many erroneously declare that the passages which seem to posit geocentricity are merely figurative or poetic language. But this hermeneutical observation is more erudite than helpful, for poetry is as clear in its meaning as prose. “The world also is established that it cannot be moved” (Psalms 96:10) can hardly be a poetic way of saying that the earth is spinning on its axis and gyrating through space in a path determined by its orbit of the sun.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis 1:1-2
The Earth was created on day one as the focal point and center of God’s creation. If the earth moved, what did it orbit on the first three days of creation? Why would it remain stationary for three days and then begin moving? Why would the earth revolve around the sun since the sun was created for the earth? It makes perfect sense in light of God’s unique purposes in the earth that it was created to be the very center of His Creation, a fact which undeniably declares His existence and authority over all things. For if the earth is indeed the center of our universe, then Someone with a capital “S” put it there. In fact, it is the theological significance of this favored position which keeps modern cosmological humanists from adopting the equally scientifically valid position of geocentricity. Modern scientists freely admit that geocentricity is just as scientifically valid as heliocentricity. Esteemed scientists such as Lawrence Krauss and Max Tegmark admit that the scientific evidence seems to point to geocentricity, but due to the theological and thus moral implications of such a position, they choose heliocentrism, not for its scientific superiority but rather because of said philosophical reasons.
Joshua’s Long Day
“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” Joshua 10:12-13
Regarding Joshua’s long day, the evidence in support of a geocentric model is overwhelming. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and the Holy Ghost narrative confirms that this is indeed what happened. Joshua did not order the earth to cease rotating, nor did he qualify his statement with the divine knowledge that the sun was merely made to appear stationary. The sun was commanded to stand still because it is the sun that moves. Moreover, it is only possible to stop something that is moving.
“Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down. “ Isaiah 38:8
Again, the Holy Ghost narrative declares that the sun returned ten degrees and thus it was clearly the sun that moved and not the earth. Please note that in both of these accounts (Joshua and Hezekiah) that we are not reading what appeared to happen from man’s perspective, but rather what indeed happened from God’s perspective as the Spirit of God declares these things. The Psalmist plainly states that the sun is “as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.” Psalm 19:5-6
Moreover the Scriptures declare that not only does the sun have a cricut, but the stars have a circuit as well. “They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.” Judges 5:20 However, nowhere is the Earth described as having any kind of circuit or course in all the word of God.
The Earth is at Rest
The plain testimony regarding the earth in the word of God is that it is at rest, neither orbiting or rotating. The times which the Scriptures refer to the earth moving is an anomaly which is always in regards to judgment. “And they answered the angel of the LORD that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest.” Zechariah 1:11
“Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” 1 Chronicles 16:30 “Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.” Job 9:6
“Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea.” Psalm 46:2 “The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” Psalm 93:1
“Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.” Psalm 96:10 “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” Psalm 104:5 “Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.” Psalm 119:90 “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.” Ecclesiastes 1:4 “Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.” Isaiah 13:13 “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” 1 Corinthians 8:13
Although I realize that the prominent meaning of some of these descriptions may not be cosmological, it is an obvious inference that the testimony of the Scriptures regarding the earth is that it is neither rotating or orbiting but stationary. Coupled with the Scriptures regarding the clear movement of the sun and stars, the implications are obvious.
The Resurrection of Christ and the Rising of the Sun
But perhaps the greatest consequence of denying the literal rising of the sun is that if the sun does not rise, then according to the Scriptures neither does Christ. God sets forth the sun as a type of Christ rising from the dead and if we make such language poetical then we negate the very essence of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus Christ who in like manner rose from the dead. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. Malachi 4:2
What saith Science?
“…All this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.” Stephen Hawking
No scientific experiment has ever been performed to prove the earth either rotates on an axis or orbits the sun. In fact, every “proof” for a moving earth rotating on its axis has been discredited. Moreover, multitudes of scientific experiments have shown the earth to be stationary and at rest.
In fact, Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity was primarily to counter the many experiments which showed the earth was not moving. His subsequent General Theory of Relativity was to cover weaknesses in the Special Theory. (It is also significant that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity allowed for the possibility that the Earth was at the center of the universe and motionless.)
Scientific Experiments Proving Geocentricity
1. The Michelson-Morley Experiment
In 1887, using an interferometer this experiment failed to detect any movement of the earth around the sun. It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary aether. The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist. This result was a threat to the heliocentric status quo and had to be overcome. Thus the rescuing device of the ad hoc Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the experimental apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity.
2. The Michelson-Gale Experiment
This experiment detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth. Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured a specific movement which was either the earth’s rotation or the aether’s rotation around the earth. This result speaks volumes for geocentricity because a rotating universe around a stationary earth would produce said effect. Moreover, the heliocentric model demand both a rotating and orbiting earth and this experiment would only validate its orbit.
3. “Airey’s failure”
If the earth were indeed moving through space, a telescope would have to be tilted slightly to get the starlight to go down the axis of the tube. In 1871 Airey filled one telescope with water which would slow down the speed of the light inside that telescope, but he discovered that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope at all. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars that were moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. For if it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.
4. The Sagnac Experiment
Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there is an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein’s theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists.
[An interesting sidenote is that all GPS satellites have the “Sagnac Effect” included into their computer programs which is another evidence against the theory of Relativity and an accredidation to the truths set forth in this article.]
According to Newton, Mach, Hawking, and Einstein both a moving earth in a fixed universe or a fixed earth with a moving sun/planets/star field are scientifically valid. Thus there are no scientific problems with the geocentric model.
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations.” […] “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” […] “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” George F.R. Ellis
“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS (Coordinate System) could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” Albert Einstein
All celestial phenomena such as stellar parallax and stellar aberration, the retrograde motion of planets, Coriolis Effect, Euler forces, and the Foucault Pendulum can all be explained from the geometry and dynamics of geocentrism.
Furthermore geocentrism solves many of the problems of modern Cosmology for it needs no Inflation, Dark Matter or Dark Energy, and does not have a limit the speed of light. In fact the latest cosmological evidence regarding CMBR studies places the earth at or near the center of the universe.
Is Heliocentricity Really Scientific?
The famous astronomer Edwin Hubble published on 1937 a study on the cosmological model of the universe, under the title “The Observational Approach to Cosmology.” In the data published in that study it was evident that Earth appeared as having a “unique” position in the cosmos, i.e. that it was in the center or very close to it. However Hubble chose not to accept that unique position based on philosophical propositions that he presupposed.
In particular, even though the nebula distribution showed that Earth should be in a center position, he discarded that idea based on the “principle” that we are not unique. In order to accommodate that “principle” he added some corrective factors to his equations. It was as unscientific and simple as that! No hard data, no scientific analysis, but merely an arbitrary and philosophical belief was the basis of his choice of heliocentricity over geocentricity.
Even though scientific data showed that the Earth is at a privileged centric position in the universe, cosmologists in the days of Hubble chose simply not to “accept” that data based on philosophical grounds. Here is a quote from Hubble himself when he saw the redshift phenomena in his telescope indicating that the earth was at the center of the universe…
“Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…”
One prominent “scientist” George Wald once declared “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible.” Thus, like the unscientific evolutionist, we see that modern Cosmology is neither led to its position of heliocentricity via an honest pursuit of truth, but rather it is unnaturally driven there by its refusal to accept the obvious scientific and Scriptural evidence which would necessitate a Creator and thus a Judge.
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ” Richard Lewontin
What do you believe regarding this subject my friend? And more importantly, why do you believe it? Is the word of God your epistemological foundation, or have you exalted your reason above God’s testimony and perhaps given credence to another myth of scientism inspired by the spirit of the age which is hostile to God and His word? CK.