the Church and his first defence of the Copernican system, Letters on Sunspots (1613), was well received and no criticism was raised. Indeed, Cardinal Barberini, who later became Pope Urban VIII and who would sentence him in 1633, was among those to congratulate Galileon his publication. n his publication. 18 Thus, Galileo’s greatest enemies were not in the church but rather among his colleagues and fellow scientists, most of whom denied the Copernican system, 19 and who were afraid of losing their position and influence. 20 De Santillana writes: “It has been known for a long time that a major part of the church’s intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.” 21 The irony in all of this is that it is the old-earth believers who need to learn the lesson of the Galileo affair. 22 Galileo came to the right conclusion while believing totally in the Bible’s accuracy, whereas his fellow scientists came to the wrong conclusion based on the current scientific consensus (Aristotelianism)! The Church has been painted as an enemy of science, when, in actual fact, Galileo’s scientific peers and colleagues were the greater enemies of true science. Conclusion Don’t let those who deny the plain reading of the creation account get away with raising these kinds of fallacious arguments. If you hear people raise such arguments, challenge them to justify their position, and point out—gently—their errors of fact and logic.
References and notes 1. Waltke, B.K., The first seven days, Christianity Today 32 : 45, 1988. 2. Ramm, B., The Christian View of Science of Scripture , Paternoster, London, 1955, p. 70. 3. Kaiser, W.C., Legitimate hermeneutics; in: Geisler, N.L. (ed.), Inerrancy , Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1980, p. 147. 4. Cosner, L., The use of Genesis in the New Testament, Creation 33 ( 2): 16–19, 2011, creation.com/nt; Sarfati, J., Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history, Creation 28 ( 2): 21–23, 2006, creation.com/gen-hist. 5. Arnold, B. T., Encountering the Book of Genesis , Baker, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998, p. 23. 6. Genesis is written as history, not poetry. See the interviews with OT scholar Dr Robert McCabe, Creation 32 ( 3): 16–19, 2010; and Hebrew scholar Dr Ting Wang, Creation 27 ( 4): 48–51, 2005, creation.com/wang. 7. Goldsworthy, G., Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture , IVP, Leicester, 2000, p. 24. 8. See in particular Hugh Ross ( Creation and Time , NavPress, Colorado Springs, 1994, pp. 16–24; (with Gleason Archer) The Day-Age Response; in: D. G. Hagopian, D.G., (editor), The Genesis Debate , Crux Press, Mission Viejo, California, 2001, pp. 68–70), Don Stoner ( A New Look at an Old ( Earth , Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1997, pp. 117–119), and Roger Forster and Paul Marston ( Reason, Science and Faith , Monarch, Crowborough, East Sussex, 1999, pp. 188 2 – 40). 9. Kulikovsky, A.S., Creation and Genesis: a historical survey, Creation Research Society Quarterly 43 ( 4):206–219, 2007. 10. See the list of calculated creation dates in Batten, D., Old-earth or young-earth belief; which belief is the recent aberration? Creation 24 (1): 24–27, 2001, creation.com/ old-young . 11. Hall, D. W., The evolution of mythology: classic creation survives as the fittest among its critics and revisers; in: Pipa, J.A. and Hall, D. W. (eds.), Did God Create in Six Days? Southern Presbyterian Press, Taylors, SC, 1999, p. 276. 12. The other originator was Antoine-
Jean Letronne (1787–1848), an anti-
religious academic, who published On
the Cosmological Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). See Jeffrey Burton Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth , Praeger, London, 1997, pp. 49–51, 58–59. 13. Russell, ref. 12, pp. 40–41, 52–54. 14. Russell, J.B., The Myth of the Flat Earth , Unpublished paper presented at the American Scientific Affiliation Conference, Westmont College, August 4, 1997; www. veritas-uscb.org. He notes that this was listed as among the top few historical mythsome years back by the Historical Society ome years back by the Historical Society of Britain. 15. Schirrmacher, T., The Galileo Affair: History or Heroic Hagiography? Journal of Creation 14 (1):91–100, 2000. 16. Sarfati, J., Galileo Quadricentennial; myth vs fact, Creation 31 ( 3): 49–51, 2009, creation.com/gal-400. 17. Ramm, ref. 2, p. 36. Forster and Marston, ( Reason and Faith, 293) agree that it is inaccurate to present the Galileo affair as a case of science vs religion. 18. Schirrmacher, ref. 12, p. 92. 19. Indeed, the vast majority of scientists athat time rejected the Copernican hat time rejected the Copernican system.Se e Barber, B., Resistance of scientists to scientific discovery, Science 134 :596–602, 1961; Custance, A.C., Science and Faith: The Doorway Papers VIII , Grand Rapids, I Michigan, 1984, p. 157.
20. Schirrmacher, ref. 15; Drake, S. (editor and
translator), Discoveries and Opinions of
Galileo , Doubleday, New York, 1957.
21. de Santillana, G., The Crime of Galileo ,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1955,
22. Grigg, R., The Galileo ‘twist’, Cre ti a on 19( 4): 30–32, 1997, creation.com/gal-twist.
Qualified in computer/information science and
theology, Andrew authored Creation, Fall,
Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation and
is a member of the Adelaide Support Group for
Creation Ministries International (Australia).
Creation 33 ( 3) 2011