I recently had a comment left on my blog by what appears to be a bona fide geocentrist. I had been planning on blogging about the topic, since it had come up on a couple of other blogs I read.
Brandon Withrow blogged about a movie called “The Principle” which promotes geocentrism. It appears to use some famous people in ways that it is hard to believe they approve of. Here is the trailer (see Brandon’s post for more details):
Ken Schenck reached the point in Wayne Grudem’s book in which he tries to offer “scientific” objections to evolution, while distancing himself from geocentrists who he says misinterpreted the Bible. Ken is not impressed, for obvious reasons.
The truth is that it is far too easy to look back at figures from the past and say that they were wrong, without realizing that you are approaching Scripture in exactly the same way they were. We’ve seen it in relation to slavery, geocentrism, and many other issues which many of us consider settled but a minority small or sizeable dissents about.
1) You cannot appeal to the idea of being part of the minority that is daring to go against the flow if all you deny is evolution or the age of the Earth. The geocentrists are an even smaller minority, one that dares to take literally Biblical language that young-earth creationists and ID proponents do not.
2) You cannot call yourself a literalist if you are not a geocentrist. Even some geocentrists may deny that there is a literal dome over the Earth, or that God literally fought with a sea monster when creating. But they take literally language that young-earth creationists inconsistently treat as figurative.
3) You cannot condemn others for being compromizers without being a hypocrite if you reject geocentrism but hold to a young earth. The latter view has enough supporters that you can find strength in numbers. Geocentrism, however, requires that you really stand apart from the crowd.
Given that geocentrism is superior to young-earth creationism in so many ways, why does it have so few supporters compared to the young earth stance? Why not really dare to be radically faithful to the literal meaning of the Bible, or dare to embrace the knowledge that comes from studying the natural world? Why be one of those sinful young-earth creationist pseudo-literalist compromising hypocrites, when a more faithful option is there for you to embrace?