There are some things too important to leave to academia, tucked away in their elitist, ivory towers scoffing at people living in the US’ flyover area.
They claim that the secular theory of gravity explains planetary orbits, but the evidence simply isn’t there.
(1) Gravity is an attractive force. When you drop something, it doesn’t spin around the earth, it falls directly to the earth. If gravity were affecting the planets, they would all fall into the Sun – not orbit around the Sun. The gravitational theory of planetary orbits is refuted by the law of gravity.
(2) Isaac Newton believed that planetary orbits would be disturbed by one planet’s gravitational force acting on other planets. This would cause the solar system to be unstable, and he proposed that supernatural forces were involved in stabilizing the planetary orbits. Isaac Newton was perhaps the greatest scientist of all time. Are you smarter than Isaac Newton? Then how can you rule-out the that the supernatural must be involved in planetary orbits?
(3) There are many instances of comets failing to obey the so-called “law of gravitation”. In 1957, there was one instance of a comet that didn’t go around the Sun, as the Galileoists predicted it would.
(4) Scientists can’t allow God or the supernatural into their explanations of planetary orbits. They are blinded to the truth by their preconceived biases. Even worse, academia attacks anyone who advances alternative views. There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God. Scientists are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve the supernatural. William Dembski said it best: “When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed.” and “any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.” We are standing up and declaring that stifling, atheistic ideas will not control our science any more.
(5) The dominant paradigm of the scientific establishment is that planets orbit the Sun due to gravitational forces. This paradigm affects and distorts everything that academics see. They are literally blind to other, better theories of planetary motion.
(6) Teachers should be entitled to plumb this question as a matter of intellectual fairness for their students, based on significant recent criticisms of Galileo’s theories. There are some very important scientific criticisms of Galileo’s theory that students should be able to learn about.
(7) Our society is being torn apart by materialist explanations for the movements of the heavens. The terrible result of removing God from our scientific theories is the decay of morality. Communism, the horrors of Nazi Germany, mass murder, school shootings, teen pregnancy, and homosexuality are all results of teaching children atheistic explanations for phenomena in our world, and our failure to make God an integral part of science.
It is time to overthrow the purely materialist explanation of planetary orbits. We must defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies – and replace those materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature is controlled by God.
– — – — –
If you’re familiar with my blog at all, you know that this is not my view. It’s a parody of creationism and intelligent design. Many of the quotes were taken directly from creationist or ID literature (sometimes altered to fit with ‘planetary orbits’).
It’s worth noting that there are still geocentrists around – inspired, of course, by the Bible. (What else but religion could make people so incredibly blind to the facts?) Creationist conventions used to allow geocentrists to come and present their theories. They later decided that it hurt them politically to be associated with geocentrists, so they don’t let them present their ideas at their conventions anymore. Links to Christian Geocentrists: “Why I Am A Geocentrist“, Geocentrist offers prize money to prove earth goes around the Sun
Inspirations and quotes:
“The gravitational theory of planetary orbits is refuted by the law of gravity.” – This was inspired by creationists misunderstandings of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and attempts to claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. (Example) A lot of creationist arguments rely on misunderstandings of scientific theories and making erroneous claims about what evolutionary theory predicts.
Isaac Newton actually did think that planetary orbits were unstable and thought divine forces were at work to stabilize them. (Pierre de Laplace showed that planetary orbits are stable without the need for divine intervention.) I’ve also seen Creationists play the ‘Newton was so smart’, ‘he believed in God and was a young earth creationist’, ‘do you think you’re smarter than he is’ game. (Link)
There are a lot of cases where creationists flat-out get the facts wrong. Had the facts corresponded to what they claimed, it would be a problem for evolutionists. For example: UncommonDescent once claimed that the coelacanths and humans had identical copies of a particular gene (false), or the creationist claim that different parts of a single mammoth gave vastly different ages based on carbon-dating (also false).
“There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God.” – Ben Stein, Expelled movie trailer
“Scientists are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an Intelligent Creator” – Ben Stein, Expelled movie trailer. This is a ridiculous fiction used to explain why ‘God’ isn’t used by scientists.
“When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed.” and “any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.” (Wikiquote: William Dembski)
I didn’t use this quote in the article above, but Behe (ID advocate) has quite a whopper on the same subject: “The danger to Christians from osmosing alien, materialistic presumptions, I think, far outweighs the danger of being wrong about any particular scientific point.”
Some creationists play the “paradigm” game, and like to pretend that paradigms blind people to any alternative interpretations. Yes, the standard theories have an easier time of it than upstart theories, but they certainly don’t blind scientists. If that were true, there would be no revolutions in all of scientific history. (Example: A review of Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism)
Various creationists and IDists have attempted to get their ideas into the class room by attempting to appeal to fairness. Quote: “He argued that teachers should be entitled to plumb this question as a matter of intellectual fairness for their students, based on what he described as significant recent criticisms of neo-Darwinian theories about random mutations and the creation of new organisms.” (Link) Quote: “There are some very important scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory that students should be able to learn about.” (Link)
Creationists like to play-up the “moral decay” angle of evolution versus creationism. They like to play this odd game: teach the Biblical story of human origins and dispense with evolution, or bad things will happen to our society (and nevermind the science?). Example: AnswersInGenesis connects a school shooting to evolution. Another common tactic among creationists and IDists is trying to connect Communism and Nazism to evolution. The Wedge Document plays hard on the moral decay claim, as well.
Summary borrowed heavily from the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document: “Governing Goals: To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.” (Link) The Discovery Institute is the main group behind “Intelligent Design”. They also spend a lot of time pretending Intelligent Design has nothing to do with God or theism – according to them, it’s just your view if you happen to think the “Intelligent Designer” = “God”. At the same time, their governing goals depends on people believing “Intelligent Designer” = “God”.
( Come to think of it, I should’ve added in something about the money offered for proving evolution / solar-centrism. Hovind used to offer $250,000 for anyone who can prove evolution. I assume that offer is no longer valid. And one geocentrist offers $5,000 to anyone who can prove the earth goes around the sun. )