Creation vs. Evolution: I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract · Parallax and Heliocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1? · The Introibo Blogger Repeats A Blunder by Henry Drummond
But if he didn't, that doesn't mean I should retract from the view of his judges. Unlike Freemasons, I don't count him as a "martyr for science" or as a kind of saint (outside the Roman Catholic lists of saints, Martyrologium Romanum, local pre-congregation etc obviously).
CMI seems to have spent some buildup to attacking Geocentrism, which is a sidekick from their usual fair.
A few days ago, in Evolution quick or slow?, Jonathan Sarfati cited St. Thomas Aquinas:
That is, there are often multiple theories that can explain the same observations. Thomas applied it to the astronomy of the day, but it works just as well for today’s biology:
… as in astronomy the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them.
Summa Theologiae/Theologica > First Part > Question 32, Article 1 > Reply to Objection 2
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm#article1
Let's give some context, first. Objection 2 and Reply to Objection 2, about what question or as the actual questions are here nicknamed "what article" (a "question" is usually a collection of articles, so actually means "question topic").
Question 32. The knowledge of the divine persons. Article 1. Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?
Objection 2. Further, Richard St. Victor says (De Trin. i, 4): "I believe without doubt that probable and even necessary arguments can be found for any explanation of the truth." So even to prove the Trinity some have brought forward a reason from the infinite goodness of God, who communicates Himself infinitely in the procession of the divine persons; while some are moved by the consideration that "no good thing can be joyfully possessed without partnership." Augustine proceeds (De Trin. x, 4; x, 11,12) to prove the trinity of persons by the procession of the word and of love in our own mind; and we have followed him in this (I:27:1 and I:27:3). Therefore the trinity of persons can be known by natural reason.
...
Reply to Objection 2. Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them. In the first way, we can prove that God is one; and the like. In the second way, reasons avail to prove the Trinity; as, when assumed to be true, such reasons confirm it. We must not, however, think that the trinity of persons is adequately proved by such reasons. This becomes evident when we consider each point; for the infinite goodness of God is manifested also in creation, because to produce from nothing is an act of infinite power. For if God communicates Himself by His infinite goodness, it is not necessary that an infinite effect should proceed from God: but that according to its own mode and capacity it should receive the divine goodness. Likewise, when it is said that joyous possession of good requires partnership, this holds in the case of one not having perfect goodness: hence it needs to share some other's good, in order to have the goodness of complete happiness. Nor is the image in our mind an adequate proof in the case of God, forasmuch as the intellect is not in God and ourselves univocally. Hence, Augustine says (Tract. xxvii. in Joan.) that by faith we arrive at knowledge, and not conversely.
Now, there is a point where another theory still makes quite a lot of sense. Tychonian theory as perfected by Riccioli who took Kepler into account for instance disagrees on the emptiness of epicentres, making instead the Sun the epicentre, and on top of that, not "epi-single-circular-centre" but "epi-one-of-elliptic-focal-points".
This still leaves the daily motion of heaven proceeding at even speed, as he said just before that, except before day I, after doomsday and on Joshua's long day.
But in order to make Heliocentrism make more sense, you actually must presume God doesn't intervene in the daily motion, which would make earth alone a more adequate subject than the visible universe around earth, contradicting Romans 1:18—20, John 5:17. However, that only is an adequate assumption if you either deny God altogether, or envisage "him" as a kind of watchmaker who needs a pause after making his clockwork, and enjoys to see it move without intervening. St. Thomas envisaged Him as both making an instrument and then playing it ... every day until today, including Sabbaths. Making Him visible through that work, even to Pagans. By contrast, that poor image of a likeness of a corruptible man, Hercules, according to that story (which may involve his bragging, since it takes place well outside Tiryns) lifted up Antaeus with his last forces, because he noticed his own forces were near exhaustion, the exact thing God proves in a daily manner is not His case.
Next we have this, from yesterday:
Did Galileo retract heliocentrism before his death?
By Andrew Sibley | Published 18 Mar, 2026
https://creation.com/en/articles/did-galileo-retract
A certain debate before Urban VIII became Pope, before Galileo was judged in 1633, involved the argument:
God could make the universe anyway He wanted. God could also make the universe look to us anyway He wanted.
Galileo made fun of it, leading to the 1633 trial, but my hope for his souls is, by 1641, it had sunk in.
You see, it doesn't mean God is dishonest or morally free to be a liar. It means that God by omnipotence would have had the physical capacity to perform a deception, had He wanted to. Given that the universe looks Geocentric, the options are:
- God made a Geocentric universe, and because He is truthful, He made it look Geocentric to us.
- God made a Heliocentric universe, but somehow, He made it look Geocentric to us.
So, Geocentrism being true corresponds to God being truthful. Even apart from Joshua 10 with parallell references. Do you know how Galileo dealt with the Bible, by the way? I'll give another citation from his letter to Grand Duchess Cristina first:
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany
Stanford University
https://web.stanford.edu/~jsabol/certainty/readings/Galileo-LetterDuchessChristina.pdf
Persisting in their original resolve to destroy me and everything mine by any means they can think of, these men are aware of my views in astronomy and philosophy. They know that as to the arrangement of the parts of the universe, I hold the sun to be situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial orbs while the earth revolves about the sun. They know also that I support this position not only by refuting the arguments of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but by producing many counter-arguments; in particular, some which relate to physical effects whose causes can perhaps be assigned in no other way.
Mainly, the physical effects in the sky as visible to us can be assigned by the Tychonian orbits, and the view on tides is erroneous, and was seen as erroneous by one of the people judging either his book in 1616 or his own position in 1633. He was from Portugal and had seen tides with his own eyes. But, this letter also deals with the Bible.
They go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes. Contrary to the sense of the Bible and the intention of the holy Fathers, if I am not mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even in purely physical matters - where faith is not involved - they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense.
Oops, can you spell out "non-overlapping magisteria" ? Leading evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould, dies, CMI was against it.
So, how does Sibley view the words of Galileo from 1641, if indeed from him, which he also threw doubt on? Back to the article Did Galileo retract heliocentrism before his death? It's no longer Galileo writing to Grand Duchess Cristina, it's the correspondence from 1641.
So, in context, Galileo wrote with ironic humour in merely expressing the judgement of the authorities. This was his opening statement:
“The falsity of the Copernican system must not be doubted at all, especially by us Catholics, who have the irrefutable authority of the sacred scriptures, interpreted by the greatest masters of theology.”
Sibley is somewhat at a loss on what "the authorities" means to a Catholic.
Now, it is unfortunately possible that Galileo saw himself as free from Catholic authority in physics, like he saw himself free from Biblical authority in physics. But in matters where the Bible binds, even on his view, so does the authority of the Church. The one possibility of his not being sincere is the idea that the question fell outside the Bible and the Church, because wasn't in the least revealed or co-revealed. (I more hold it as co-revealed than as revealed: "lions prowl seeking prey" is similarily not a mystery of faith, but confirmed as true by the faith, and in that same sense co-revealed.) For whatever falls in the scope of revelation, Galileo was well aware of this:
He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
[Luke 10:16]
But there is a somewhat ludicrous turn of events in Sibley's analysis:
Later in the letter, he expressed the view that, although he considered the Copernican observations to be in incomplete, he thought the alternative views were more in error. He wrote:
“And just as I consider the Copernican observations and conjectures insufficient, I equally consider those of Ptolemy, Aristotle and their followers to be more fallacious and erroneous.”
Rejecting Ptolemy and Aristotle was by now not the least synonymous to rejecting all the alternative views. The words of Galileo don't spell out any rejection of Tycho Brahe or of Riccioli. And the 1633 didn't hold him to staying with Aristotle or Ptolemy, it is quite compatible with accepting Tycho.
At the time of writing, the Copernican system was not fully confirmed by scientific observation, and so the postulations were indeed insufficiently validated at that time. And yet, Galileo considered the geocentric Ptolemaic and Aristotelian views to be in greater error.
The Copernican system is by now fully refuted. You see, it involves the fix stars forming so to speak "one shell" ... if we were to accept that the 1838 Bessel phenomenon were due to the optic effect called parallax (the train ride illusion, when you see hills and trees and houses rush by), this would place stars at vastly different distances from us, and by now even involve the Distant Starlight Problem. If the fix stars do form one shell, then the 1838 phenomenon isn't parallactic, even if it's called parallax from being analysed as such, and then presumably Earth isn't moving.
You may have meant that the Heliocentric system was not fully confirmed. It still isn't. As to the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian views, Galileo may have been basking in his glory from having refuted them on other topics than their Geocentrism, as indeed he had.
And even if he did, it would be fallacious to suggest that it affected the truth or otherwise regarding the question of geocentrism vs heliocentrism.
The retraction as such would not affect the question, but some arguments would. Like the one I saw in Sungenis' material, about God being able to create the universe anyway He liked and make it look anyway He liked. However, the retraction would be of interest to those concerned with Galileo's eternal soul.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Joseph
19.III.2026
In Judaea natalis sancti Joseph, Sponsi beatissimae Virginis Mariae, Confessoris; quem Pius Nonus, Pontifex Maximus, votis et precibus annuens totius catholici Orbis, universalis Ecclesiae Patronum declaravit.
Side note:
Beside a video by Sungenis, I saw this question in the chat:
QUESTION: Under geocentrism, is there a naturalistic explanation for the movement of the Sun around the earth that creates the seasons?
For St. Thomas, it worked like this: a) God moves everything from fix stars down to oceanic currents West each day, and the Sun along with it, b) meanwhile, the angel of the Sun is moving it along the Zodiac, around another axis than the one of the daily motion, and that circle is giving sometimes at Equator, sometimes South of it (in December) and sometimes North of it (in June)./HGL
