Claudius Ptolemaeus was a Greek astronomer from the 2nd century AD. He was extremely influential and created a geocentric model of the universe that endured for centuries. The model was named for him – the Ptolemaic model. It was not until time of Galileo that scientific consensus finally turned away from his earth-centered model of the universe replaced it with a heliocentric model. How do I know this? I learned about Ptolemy in school.
For years there has been a controversy around teaching special creation in school. A majority of people favor presenting creation along side evolution in science classrooms (as seen here). Critics scoff saying any discussion of creation belongs in a religion class and not in a science class. Of course, they are being disingenuous because they really don’t want creation – or anything religious – discussed in public schools at all.
But something occurred to me recently: if the Ptolemaic model is still being discussed in public classrooms (as something people once believed), what is really the harm of discussing the creation model as something ½ of the
I’m asking in earnest: what is the difference? The Ptolemaic model has been discarded centuries ago yet it is still included in science books. The only reason it’s given any press is because it was such a popular model and it endured for 1,000 years. Well, creation cosmology is still believed by approximately ½ of the
There is one obvious difference between teaching about Ptolemy and teaching about creation: it’s not likely that anyone will ever take an earth-centered model of the universe seriously. However, in a recent study, it was learned that when students are taught about creation AND evolution, they tend to choose creation. From the article:
“University students whose high school biology class covered creationism – in some cases alongside evolution – were more likely to accept creationist views upon entering college, the study found. Those whose high school biology teachers taught evolution but not creationism were more likely to accept evolution in college.”
Isn't that interesting? When students are presented both views in high school, they tend to believe creation. When students are presented only evolution in high school, they tend to believe evolution.
I see what's going on: teach kids evolution - don't let them hear anything to the contrary - and they're more likely to believe evolution. There's a word for this phenomenon - it's called "brainwashing."
It’s OK to talk about Ptolemy – it’s not OK to talk about God.
5 comments:
First of all, as a matter of historical fact, people did take the Ptolemaic model seriously. Martin Luther and John Calvin, as well as Pope Urban, supported it against the Copernican and Galilean heliocentric model, as better matching biblical statements about the movements of the Earth and sun.
Second, would you really like the "creation model" presented in the same fashion as the Ptolemaic model: as an idea discredited by later research and replaced by a theory that better accounted for the totality of the data?
Third, as you note, many Americans still accept creationism (for that matter, a small minority still accept geocentrism, although many geocentrists are Tychonians (holding that the sun orbits the Earth and other planets orbit the sun) rather than Ptolemaians). Obviously, if their lessons imply that creationism still has scientific evidence in its favor, they're going to accept this official confirmation of their prejudices. If schools taught that the Ptolemaic system explained the data as well as the Newtonian and Einsteinian systems, many students would probably embrace geocentrism too.
From what I've seen of them, the arguments for creationism are fatally flawed. They consist either of "this is so complicated there's no point to seeking a natural explanation for it; it must be a miracle," or else of facts that are actually more consistent with evolution than with creation, but presented as though they were problems for evolution. For example, several creationists have raised the "problem" of crocodiles being more genetically similar to chickens than to lizards, as though evolutionists had not concluded as far back as the late 19th century that in fact crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards.
Steven J,
Thanks again for visiting my blog. You said:
“First of all, as a matter of historical fact, people did take the Ptolemaic model seriously. Martin Luther and John Calvin, as well as Pope Urban, supported it against the Copernican and Galilean heliocentric model, as better matching biblical statements about the movements of the Earth and sun.”
The church in Galileo’s day made the same mistake as many in the church today; they have wed their interpretation of Scripture to scientific opinion. The prevailing scientific model of the day was the Ptolemaic model and the church felt it was “compatible” with Scripture. It is only compatible if one disregards ordinary use of language. Likewise people think evolution is “compatible” with Genesis. Again, it is only compatible if we completely disregard the ordinary meaning of the Bible.
You said, “Second, would you really like the "creation model" presented in the same fashion as the Ptolemaic model: as an idea discredited by later research and replaced by a theory that better accounted for the totality of the data?”
Perhaps not in exactly the same fashion. Certainly, Ptolemy is afforded much more respect by academia than most creationists are. Yet in any event, creation could be presented objectively as something a large percentage of the US population currently believes to be true. I don’t even mind that it would be characterized as a minority opinion among scientists. I’m not asking for equal treatment: I’m asking that teachers might do their job and teach students to think critically rather than brainwash them.
You said, “Third, as you note, many Americans still accept creationism (for that matter, a small minority still accept geocentrism, although many geocentrists are Tychonians (holding that the sun orbits the Earth and other planets orbit the sun) rather than Ptolemaians).”
If by “small minority” you mean “none” then I would agree. I have never seen a serious cite of any modern creationist who was a proponent of geocentrism (and certainly not a flat earth). It’s a straw man of our beliefs that evolutionists use to ridicule us.
You said, “From what I've seen of them, the arguments for creationism are fatally flawed. They consist either of "this is so complicated there's no point to seeking a natural explanation for it; it must be a miracle," or else of facts that are actually more consistent with evolution than with creation, but presented as though they were problems for evolution. For example, several creationists have raised the "problem" of crocodiles being more genetically similar to chickens than to lizards, as though evolutionists had not concluded as far back as the late 19th century that in fact crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards.”
Then I would say you have a very shallow understanding of creationist arguments. This is not surprising since our schools have systematically sought to squelch all discussion of creationism.
God bless,
RKBentley
Good day people, I just signed up on this terrific community and wanted to say hello! Have a amazing day!
hey all
I just wanted to introduce myself to everyone!
Can't wait to start some good conversations!
-Marshall
Thanks again!
Marshall,
Thanks for visiting my blog. If you have an opinion about anything I've written, please speak up.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment