Prince: "so as along as you believe that Relativity is still intact, then you are obliged to agree with Sir Fred that 'the Geocentric Paradigm is at least as good as anyone else's'!"

I won't get into a slanging match, but no, I am not obliged to agree that geocentrism is as good as anything else. There are many more observations of the universe possible besides the apparent diurnal movements of the stars. For example, I've heard the CBR described loosely as the "rest frame for the universe"--and the CBR is not absolutely isotropic with respect to Earth. For example, I find geocentric explanations of measured changes in Earth's rotation due to earthquakes unconvincing. And so forth.

Perhaps you would agree with Sir Fred that religion is a refuge for minds unable to face the reality of mankind's insignificance? Fred Hoyle had some pretty disparaging stuff to say about the Hebrew presentation of cosmology, I believe. I'll see if I can find his little book on cosmology and quote some of it to you.

Prince: "You of course would be prepared to give up on Heliocentrism/Acentrism if the fringes showed up on the Moon!"

Quite a lot would depend on the eventual interpretation of the experiment--on the explanation given by physicists for the finding. I think that a non-null result for a test of the isotropy of light propagation would force a re-evaluation of a lot of theory but it would not necessarily prove geocentrism in one stroke. Perhaps most importantly, it would do nothing to eliminate objections to geocentrism not based on the isotropy of the propagation of light, such as the ones I mentioned above.

As far as my evaluation of the behavior of believers (as opposed to scientists, in the best meaning of the word) goes, I base it on personal observation. I have never yet met a True Believer who would change his mind on his Belief. Bouw describes the psychological development of Belief on his autobiographical web page:

"I joined the Creation Research Society and soon ran into some differences with them because many, though not all of the members of that learned society are scientists first and biblicists second. I had learned my second lesson, though. Science can never correct the Bible. Never twist the wording of scripture to fit a pet theory. I still cannot go along with the two-model approach: that creationism and evolutionism should be taught side-by-side as theories. Again I asked the Lord: 'What must I forget next?'"

A Believer must be a Biblicist first and foremost; science is secondary. Science can never correct the Bible. The man who knows something of science is required to "forget" that which contradicts the Bible: "What must I forget next?" That's my impression of Believers exactly, and that's why I (respectfully) doubt that you would indeed change your mind.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-01-13 05:08 ]</font>