Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.origins
Subject: Re: Should we teach Copernicanism?
Message-ID: <339@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 17:54:51 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.339
Posted: Mon Oct 28 17:54:51 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 04:24:37 EST
References: <1619@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2363@sunybcs.UUCP> <730@whuxl.UUCP> <1585@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 72
Xref: watmath net.politics:11718 net.origins:2526

Rather than arguing about whether we should teach creationism or evolution
my article on Copernicanism pointed out that taking the Bible as some
literal scientific textbook would also require removing Copernicanism
(that the Earth *moves* around the Sun rather than vice versa) from the schools.
I have gotten few responses from Creationists to this argument.
Here is one:  (>> Are my original article, > Paul's response)
> 
> > **********************************************************
> > *And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.  And God saw that the
> > light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.  God called 
> > the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.  And there was evening and
> > there was morning, one day.*
> > ******************************************************
> > Is there any conception in this passage that "one day" might only apply
> > to solely our own solar system and the Earth's rotation?
> > No, because to the author of this passage the only light was our own
> > terrestrial day.  The idea that other stars and their planets rotation
> > might lead to "days" on other planets is inconceivable given the
> > author's primitive knowledge of the universe: after all, we all know there
> > is only one "day" and one "night" as we directly experience it here 
> > on Earth.  Moreover, of course, the fact that the Sun's light continues
> > even tho the Earth may be temporarily turned away from it is also unknown
> > to the author.  There is an irremediable separation between light and
> > darkness-either all is light or all is darkness.  That part of the planet
> > may be in light while the other is in darkness is alien to the author's
> > view of the universe.
> 
> Given that this verse refers to a time before there were *any* stars,
> and therefore that the reference to any solar event is questionable,
> this sort of argument might be said to be somewhat misdirected.
> 
 
Paul, admittedly I am interpreting this verse in the context of the later verses
which are quite clearly NON_COPERNICAN.  I note that you never either
mention or attempt to respond to those later verses which are much clearer.
> 
> > *then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground*
> >  
> > ******************************************************
> > Only *after* Adam has been created does God create the animals:
> >  
> > **********************************************************
> > *Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;
> > I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the LORD God
> > formed *every beast of the field and every bird of the air...*
> >  
> > ******************************************************
> > When this passage says *every beast of the field* it implies
> > that it is not a question of merely creating *some* beasts and birds
> > for Adam's company but *all* beasts and birds.  Yet in Genesis 1
> > beasts and birds have already been created *before* man.
> > Therefore these two accounts of creation in the very beginning 
> > of the Bible contradict each other quite blatantly.
> 
> ...So out of the ground the LORD God *had formed* every... - as you will
> discover by looking in different translations.
> Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
 
I am afraid this argument will not cut the mustard:
 1)My Bible says: "It is not good that the man should be alone;
                   I *will* make him a helper fit for him."
   As I read this it quite clearly states that God *will* create the animals
   *after* he has already created Adam. This conclusion is also reinforced
   when the sentence says "*SO* out of the ground..." which also implies
   that God performed the act of creating beasts and birds *AFTER* Adam.
 2)The contradiction is one that is well-known to Biblical scholars
   for it was footnoted and pointed out in my Bible as evidence that
   the two accounts were written at different times with different authors.
My conclusion remains: if we are to take the Bible as *literal scientific truth*
then we have to close our eyes and deny that the Earth in fact moves in its
orbit around the Sun.
      tim sevener  whuxn!orb