The Heliocentric Theory states planets in our solar system revolve around the Sun. Sense it's just a theory..?
should we rally to reach alternatives in American schools?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
I ask this because I find too many Creationists on this forum think the word 'theory' means 'guess'. While in regular usage the word does mean 'guess', in science it's the second highest form of certainty. I guess is called a 'hypothesis'. The highest form of certainty is a Law. Sense nothing is actually proven in science and things are only proven in math, things that can be represented with equations are called Laws. (Newton's Law of Motion, Law of Thermodynamics). Gravity, Evolution, Planets revolving around the Sun (Helicentrism) can't be represented by equations, so they're called 'theories'. However, they are backed by tons of evidence.
Does this shine a little light on you Creationists who believe Evolution is just a 'theory'? (or will you ignore it?)
Sir Harrington-Wimbleworth-Smith2011-01-29T10:51:14Z
Favorite Answer
No, we shouldn't, for obvious reasons.
As a Christian and someone who's interested in Biology, I recognize that evolution happens; anyone who doesn't just doesn't know their stuff. I also know, however, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that God made everything. I don't really know enough about Genesis or evolutionary theory yet to say exactly how they work together, but I'm confidant that there are no discrepancies between how we observe the world and how the Bible describes it. I've heard a few people say that the Creation story is written in the style of a myth, and that God just wanted to communicate the fact that He made everything to His people. I don't know- I'm no expert, and so I'm reserving my opinion for a time when I can have enough behind it for it to be solid.
Actually, thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't quite sure what the difference was between a hypothesis and a theory. Isn't gravity a Law, though, since you can work out a formula for it?
There is a lot to a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a collection of specific concepts, data, math, etc. that work to explain a certain area of how the world works. Usually, an educated guess is a hypothesis. When it is verified against much experimental data, it is promoted to a theory. After years, maybe decades, or even more time has yielded more and more evidence consistent with the theory, and none to the contrary, it because a law. Evolution could almost be validly called a theory. However, it is still highly lacking in preexisting evidence and experimental evidence. For example, evolution requires complexity to arise from non-complexity without complex help, which has never been observed. It also contradicts the fossil record in many places, and requires millions of still-missing links between species. Oh, and did I mention it contradicts some of the earliest defined principle of genetics? Without being disproven, traditional genetics has been cast to the wayside for the hypothesis of evolution.
I agree. Traditionally, the Church has always believed in geocentrism.
"Geocentrism is the view that the earth is the center of the universe, and that the universe (sun, moon, stars, planets) revolves around the earth. Most geocentrists also believe that the earth stands still, and does not rotate on its axis. Geocentrism is in contrast to heliocentrism, which is the view that the earth rotates on its axis and, along with the other planets, revolves around the sun. While it is permissible for Christians to hold the heliocentric view, heliocentrism can only be advanced as a theory, not a certainty (because neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism can be scientifically proven definitively). In fact, three Popes (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) have officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion that heliocentrism was a truth to be believed with certainty. Instead, the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition and teachings of the Church support a geocentric cosmology vis-à-vis a heliocentric one. Nota Bene: I am a faithful Catholic, not a scientist. I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. When presented with a question of faith (such as how God created the universe), I look to the Scriptures, the Tradition and the teachings of the Catholic Church for the answer. I do not rely upon modern scientists who have been unable to prove heliocentrism and disprove geocentrism, especially those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture and generally abhor the Catholic faith. "
Well, not exactly. Scientific "laws" are *only* things that can be expressed as direct mathematical functions. No theory *ever* graduates to become a "law," no matter how much certainty we have in it -- it will always be a theory.
Newton's "law" of gravity (which, as most people know by now, is only a 'law' at non-relativistic velocities) is a simple mathematical equation that relates the gravitational attraction between two bodies by their mass and their distance from each other. His theory of gravity (which is also only correct at non-relativistic velocities) explains how the observed fact of gravity works. While both are still useful at non-relativistic velocities, both have been superseded by General Relativity.
Anyway...yeah, they don't understand science at all.
Earth and the other planets rotating around it in circular paths modified by epicycles and at uniform speeds. The Copernican model departed from the Ptolemaic system that prevailed in Western culture for centuries, placing Earth at the center of the Universe, and is often regarded as the launching point to modern astronomy and the Scientific Revolution.[1]
As a university-trained Catholic priest dedicated to astronomy, Copernicus was acquainted with the Sun-centered cosmos of the ancient Greek Aristarchus. Although he circulated an outline of the heliocentric theory to colleagues decades earlier, the idea was largely forgotten until late in his life he was urged