The scientific stalemate that Cardinal Bellarmine referred to when he wrote his letter to Foscarini in 1615 was due to the inability of anyone to prove the superiority of either the Copernican or Ptolemaic/Aristotelian theory to the other. Both theories of the universe, although “saving the appearances” made by astronomers over the years, offered a different explanation of celestial mechanics. The Aristotelian theory held that the earth is motionless at the center of the universe, and that the sun, planets, and stars revolve daily around it. It was the most easily understood model, agreeing with simple observations such as the sun, moon, planets, and stars apparently racing across the sky daily. The Copernican theory argued that the sun lay at the center of the universe, and the earth and planets revolve around the sun.
In contrast to this, the religious view of the creation of earth involves Creationism, the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are a creation of God (Williams, 2010). Both definitions can be differentiated into the fact that science is unable to understand religion, however similarities are evident is that both fields study the same world and same reality. Since both religion and science contain quite controversial opinions into the creation of earth, is it possible for there to be a connection? The idea of disconnection between religion and science is not an unrealistic concept, as there are tensions dating back to the 1800’s between the churches and scientists regarding the creation of earth. The idea that the Sun orbited the Earth was accepted as true in the Bible, instead of the Earth orbiting the Sun.
You see, if Earth is special and it takes so much fine tuning to create life as we see it today, the odds of that happening on some other planet or out in the remote recesses of space is just practically nil” (“Up”). Dr. Sungenis and his followers favor the ideal that the Earth resides at the center of the universe, and was placed there in correspondence to a pattern dictated by an almighty being. They deny the Copernicus principle, which states that Earth wasn’t planned, and that it and its inhabitants
You see, if Earth is special and it takes so much fine tuning to create life as we see it today, the odds of that happening on some other planet or out in the remote recesses of space is just practically nil” (“Up”). Dr. Sungenis and his followers favor the ideal that the Earth resides at the center of the universe, and was placed there in correspondence to a pattern
Even though Kant was able to base many of the laws of science in philosophy, he was not able to show that space and time are tools we use to perceive our world and could never exist themselves absent of the mind. Scientific laws must be judgments of experience and universally objective to be considered laws of science because they need to have the ability to give all observers the same experience of a phenomenon. Where Kant is wrong is his belief of space and time as dependent upon the mind. New discoveries in physics have shown that space and time must be able to exist in the absence of the mind, proving that Kant was wrong in his presumption that space and time could never exist absolutely. Science today may have its elementary basis in philosophy, but the higher principles of science, particularly that of physics, are outside the understanding and thinking of philosophy.
Is pseudoscience an influence in modern day society? The quick answer is ‘yes, the Moon, stars, Sun etc.’ do have an effect on our beliefs. This "science" however is based strictly on the interpretation that one perceives. Whether you believe the zodiac or astrology signs, the correlation between the fortune told and the actual outcome are coincidental and do not have any scientific support. Astrology consists of a number of belief systems that state a strong relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world.
The theory of Geocentrism states that all planets as well as the Sun orbit the Earth. Even though we see the sun move across the sky and it feels as if the earth stands still I believe in Helocentrism; the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun. Due to the early natural philosophical assumptions of Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and Rene Descartes I reject the theory of Geocentrism. Rene Descartes uses logic and mathematics to convince me that the theory of Geocentrism is incorrect. In his Discourse, he expresses the perfection of math when he writes, “I found mathematics especially delightful because of the certainty and clarity of its reasoning.
Nicholas Copernicus was the first to question the universal truths and teachings of the church. He devised a theory that the earth along with the other planets revolved around the sun. This theory disagreed with Aristotle and the old teachings that the universe revolved around the earth, and that man was the center of the universe. To follow Copernicus’ theory was Giordano Bruno. He went beyond Copernicus to suggest that space was limitless, and that the sun and its planets may not be the only systems of its kind.
It states that, "Evolutionists use the scientific method which assumes that everything happens as a result of natural forces, not by the command of a deity. They will usually trace origins back to the `big bang.' And when skeptics ask what happened before the big bang, scientists may offer some guesses, but will usually admit that they don't know." On the other side of the debate, the creation scientists believe that, "God created the universe, including the earth and its life forms. And when scientific skeptics ask who created God, creationists will usually reply that God has always existed and was not created.
Zeno was merely trying to defend Parmenides doctrine that all is one, whereas the Atomist claimed there was only one kind of thing (Atoms). Both Zeno and the Atomist argued against infinite divisibility. Zeno arrives at two different conclusions. His first conclusion; after dividing infinitely you would be left with nothing is impossible because something cannot be created by nothing. His other end is that after division, there would be infinitely small particles that would make infinitely large objects.