Intelligent Design

The Size of the Stars Issue in 17th Century Astronomy

Spread the love

OK, raise your hand if you knew that the in the 1600’s advocates of the heliocentric view appealed to God’s greatness to answer geocentric arguments.  Yep.  In fact, the “size of the star” issue was not fully resolved until the 1800s.  The point is that the debate was not purely religion (geo) vs. science (helio).  The geo advocates had scientific arguments that were not fully answered until the 1800s, and the helio advocates sometimes resorted to religious arguments.  Anyone who has followed the standard history of the so-called war of religion against science would be surprised to learn there was nuance.  John Hartnett writes:

The size of stars argument went as follows. Sizes of stars were first measured by eye, before the invention of the telescope. That is what Tycho Brahe spent much of his time doing. That gives a ‘magnitude’ for a star, catalogued as magnitudes 1 through 6, with 1 the largest and 6 the smallest. Of course, large meant bright and small meant dim. It was based on these ‘measured’ sizes of stars that Tycho Brahe developed an argument against Copernicus.

Then with the invention of the telescope, it was observed that the star sizes were at least 10 times smaller. But because the astronomers also observed solid disks for the planets out to Saturn (and even phases for Venus) it was then believed that the telescope gave the true sizes of the stars also. Based on telescopic measurements of the star sizes Riccioli formulated a version of the Brahe argument against the heliocentric system and in favour of the geocentric Tychonic system.

With the telescope astronomers looked for parallax of the distant stars but were not able to detect any parallax. In the geocentric universe the earth is immobile and hence no parallax would be expected. In the heliocentric universe, the earth orbits the sun once per year, and in so doing over a 6 month period moves from one side of its orbit to the other. Therefore based on trigonometry a foreground star should be seen to move against the more distant background stars between these two extrema. But of course the orbit is circular. Therefore if a star is close enough it should trace out a circle on the sky as seen from earth over the solar year.

Thus the argument followed that if a star was seen to have a certain size but it was too distant to exhibit any parallax then it must be massively large, at least as large as the orbit of the earth around the sun. It was argued that that must be the case otherwise no disk for the star could be observed. The only response the Copernican astronomers had to that was that God is a great God and He made such large stars for His own glory. Riccioli argued that it was not the geocentrists who appealed to authority but the heliocentrists, in their answer to the ‘size of stars’ argument. [more]

23 Replies to “The Size of the Stars Issue in 17th Century Astronomy

  1. 1
    News says:

    Barry, masses of science history fronted by pop science mags is just plain false. It would be an embarrassment among people who could be embarrassed by such ignorance, but my impression is that it proves they are Cool. From my handy guide to examples of fake news:

    4. False and prejudiced history repeated so often it becomes fact

    Do you remember when the Catholic Church burned Copernicus at the stake for suggesting that Earth orbited the sun? Me neither. Popular science writing frequently retails false history.

    In one recent example, many media outlets informed us that the Bible must be wrong because it states that the Canaanites were exterminated. But modern genetic studies showed that descendants survived the massacres. As a matter of fact, as David Klinghoffer painstakingly details, we can learn in many places in the Bible that the Canaanites survived. Yet the sources of plainly false information were grudging in their corrections:

    Even the reputable journal Science, in a reporting article, had to backtrack with an editor’s correction, blandly styled as an “update”:

    “This story and its headline have been updated to reflect that in the Bible, God ordered the destruction of the Canaanites, but that some cities and people may have survived.”

    Klinghoffer responds,

    Not “may have survived.” In the Bible’s account, they definitely survived, in large numbers. The original headline? “Ancient DNA counters biblical account of the mysterious Canaanites.” It should be, “Ancient DNA confirms biblical account…”

    But that would be expecting too much. James Hannam offers many other examples at First Things,

    As it happens, much of the evidence marshaled in favor of the conflict thesis turns out to be bogus. The Church never tried to outlaw the number zero or human dissection; no one was burnt at the stake for scientific ideas; and no educated person in the Middle Ages thought that the world was flat, whatever interpretations of the Bible might imply. Popes have had better things to do than ban vaccination or lightning conductors on churches. The thought of a pope excommunicating Halley’s Comet is absurd, but this has not prevented the tale of Calixtus III doing just that from entering scientific folklore.

    This particular type of fake news misleads readers as to the nature and source of controversies around science, including some in which much is at stake. For example, if the UN wishes to export currently fashionable gender dysphoria to less developed countries and indigenous churches oppose it, why should we assume that the UN experts are right and that church members should buy their little boys princess costumes?

    – From Extra! Extra! A handy guide to the normal fake news: Surviving information overload

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    4. False and prejudiced history repeated so often it becomes [perceived?] fact

  3. 3
    News says:

    kairosfocus at 2, that’s how Wikipedia defines fact: Repeated often enough. How Wikipedia can turn fiction into fact: Once enough canards are in circulation, entire fictional scenarios can be created that are difficult to confute because they appear to be well-sourced via constant repetition. 

    Like photoshopping—it was always there in principle, but never so easy. If the Wikipedians themselves don’t take this more seriously, the rest of us had better.

    My own practice is never to use Wikipedia as a source for factual information without checking it with another, non-crowd source.

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    fact (f?kt)
    1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
    a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
    b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
    c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
    3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
    4. Law A conclusion drawn by a judge or jury from the evidence in a case: a finding of fact.
    in (point of) fact
    In reality or in truth; actually.
    [Latin factum, deed, from neuter past participle of facere, to do; see dh?- in Indo-European roots.]
    Usage Note: Since the word fact means “a real occurrence, something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed,” the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known, would seem to be redundant. But fact has a long history of use in the sense of “an allegation of fact” or “something that is believed to be true,” as in this remark by union leader Albert Shanker: “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong.” This usage has led to the notion of “incorrect facts,” which causes qualms among critics who insist that facts must be true. The usages, however, are often helpful in making distinctions or adding emphasis.
    American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
    fact (fækt)
    1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
    2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation
    3. a piece of information: get me all the facts of this case.
    4. (Law) law (often plural) an actual event, happening, etc, as distinguished from its legal consequences. Questions of fact are decided by the jury, questions of law by the court or judge
    5. (Philosophy) philosophy a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement
    6. (Law) after the fact criminal law after the commission of the offence: an accessory after the fact.
    7. (Law) before the fact criminal law before the commission of the offence
    8. as a matter of fact in fact in point of fact in reality or actuality
    9. fact of life an inescapable truth, esp an unpleasant one
    10. the fact of the matter the truth
    [C16: from Latin factum something done, from factus made, from facere to make]
    ?factful adj
    Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
    fact (fækt)

    1. something that actually exists: Your fears have no basis in fact.
    2. something known to exist or to have happened.
    3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
    4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened.
    5. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.
    1. after the fact, done, made, or formulated after something has occurred.
    2. in fact, in truth; really; indeed: They are, in fact, great patriots.
    [1530–40; < Latin factum something done, deed]
    fact?ful, adj.
    Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
    1. 'fact'

    A fact is an item of knowledge or information that is true.
    It may help you to know the full facts of the case.
    The report is several pages long and full of facts and figures.

    Be Careful!
    Don't talk about 'true facts' or say, for example, 'These facts are true'.
    2. 'the fact that'

    You can refer to a whole situation by using a clause beginning with the fact that.
    He tried to hide the fact that he was disappointed.
    The fact that the centre is overcrowded is the main thing that people complain about.

    Be Careful!
    You must use that in clauses like these. Don't say, for example, 'He tried to hide the fact he was disappointed'.
    3. 'in fact'

    You use in fact to show that you are giving more detailed information about what you have just said.
    They've been having financial problems. In fact, they may have to close down.
    Collins COBUILD English Usage © HarperCollins Publishers 1992, 2004, 2011, 2012

  5. 5
    rvb8 says:


    the grammar lesson, and extensive dictionary extracts prove what exactly?

    A.N.Wilson’s ‘Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker’, however is a treasure trove of historical, scientific, and bigraphical lies. Torn apart recently by several prominant people, and publications; can you find them?


    if you want ‘false history’ repeated adnausium try, ‘Darwin-led directly to Hitler, eugenics,abortion, destruction of civilisation, death of morality’.

    This at least can be clearly seen in the ‘Wedge’ document.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, Kindly go re-read Orwell’s 1984 with a special focus on the Ministry of Truth, so-called. Then, ask yourself what material difference is there between that satire and some of the antics we have seen in Wikidpedia — yes, that is deliberate — and too many other sources including far too much of our news and views media all across our civilisation. When you can show some concern for the distortion of representations of reality in influential sources often looked to for facts, then maybe we have a basis for serious discussion. meanwhile, the PS below will give a little balance to your attempted turnabout projection. KF

    PS: On the consequences of the West’s apostasy over the past 200 years, it would be helpful to put Darwin and Haeckel et al in line with those Heine skewered in his chilling warning at the end of his book on Religion and Philosophy in Germany, in 1831 or thereabouts:

    Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [–> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . .], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. …

    The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. …

    … Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. …

    At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [–> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [–> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [ Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831]

    In case you don’t understand where he was coming from kindly read Romans 1:18 – 32.

    meanwhile, this thread needs to return to the size of stars issue, which is actually a significant matter and provides some needed balance.

  7. 7
    ET says:


    A.N.Wilson’s ‘Darwin: Victorian Mythmaker’, however is a treasure trove of historical, scientific, and bigraphical lies.

    Evidence please.

  8. 8

    rvb8 @ 5: Your frustration is showing. Still no penny drop. Not even close!

  9. 9
    rvb8 says:

    ET @7,

    find the evidence yourself, you have an index finger and a mouse.

    Try the, ‘Evening Standard’ book review where he is politely shredded, and then the ‘Times’ book review, where he is mercilessly shredded.

    No links; do your own tireless ID research with your mouse, and index. You know the standard ID research policy, ‘cut and paste’.

    TWSYF @8,

    yeeees, I am the one frustrated as my position is not supported by the scientific community, universities, research companies, Nobel Lauriettes, and scientists named ‘Steve’ worldwide.:) Your frustration however at ID’s progress since the great roll-out of 1999 with Dembski and co, is palpable:)

    Kairos is indeed back @6,

    with a ‘P.S’, longer than his post.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    rvb8- I have plenty of evidence tat Darwin was a fool and out of his depth when it comes to biological evolution. It was his ignorance, and only ignorance, that allowed him to make the asinine claims he did.

    Research? If evolutionists would do some then perhaps their position wouldn’t be as ridiculed as it is.

  11. 11
    rvb8 says:


    no offense, but do you own a computer, or is it only locked onto websites that support your silly view of Darwin? Your personal opinions on this person are truly, truly worthless; you must see that, don’t you?

    I visit,,, this site,,,,, and other conservative, and evangelical sites.

    I try to keep up with the latest arguments, such as they are, I have found there is never anything new in the research of, and the political thinking is repetative.

    Tell me what are your favourite science sites, if you have any? I could name several of mine, but they are all well known universities, NASA, research institutes, and blogs.

    Could you google Darwin? Then your rediculous, tedious, personally held poor opinion, would be shown for the nonsense it is.

    Your opinion would get you laughed out of any science conferance in the world, bar Answers in Genesis of course, or a conferance sponsored by the Institute of Creation Research, or the Discovery Institute of course. Heh:)

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, it seems you are still refusing to acknowledge the existence of the corpus of ID professional literature, and its import. You are also refusing to acknowledge the focal, pivotal issue that science in the end must be an empirical evidence led search for the truth about our cosmos. latest-greatest results undermined by back door imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic ideology fails that test. The evidence is, signs of design exist in the world, in life and in the physics of the cosmos. That is a significant finding and one that we need to address on its merits rather than on distractive personalities and accusations against groups not present to defend themselves. the guilt by invidious association trick that lurks beneath the repeated references to Creationist groups is also fallacious. Address the evidence on the merits, or stand further exposed as little more than an agit prop operative. KF

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: The OP addresses a highly significant issue in history and philosophy of science, and it would be useful to return focus there. In particular, we see that in C17, there were significant scientific debates that were not resolved in material part until 200 years later when evidence of diffraction patterns explained apparent sizes of stars in telescopic images — utterly contrasting with the outdated religion vs science warfare thesis and far too much anti-theistic rhetoric. The linked point that there was evidence of sudden winking out on eclipses such that stars should have been recognised as point sources, is also important. It is in C19 that the first stellar parallax results were obtained. Later on stellar distance measurements depended on statistical studies, the calibration of Delta Cepheid variables [e.g. Polaris] as in effect standard variable candles and the like. Onward, we see where supernovae have also been used, though we see emerging evidence of significant diversity there too. Sometimes, scientific debates pivot on evidence that will not be available at the time when the issue is hottest, and sometimes, key evidence is not widely recognised or identified as decisive. All of this should help us to recalibrate our sense of where the consensus is at any given time. KF

  14. 14
    ET says:

    rvb8- You don’t even know what science entails so your opinion, like everything else you say, is meaningless.

    Natural selection, Darwin’s allegedly great idea, has been a bust. No one knows how to test the claim that natural selection is a designer mimic. The ONLY claim that can be tested is that populations change over time. However the change only produces a wobbling stability and never anything that resembles universal common descent.

  15. 15
    critical rationalist says:


    OK, raise your hand if you knew that the in the 1600’s advocates of the heliocentric view appealed to God’s greatness to answer geocentric arguments.

    Even if that were true, in the case of some people regarding some specific aspect of the theory, so what?

    The question is, can we defend Helocentricism knowing only what people knew then? Yes, we can.

    How? Not because it made better predictions. Geocentricism could be modified in ad-hoc ways to produce the same predictions of Helocentricism. In fact, the Inquisition had no problems with Galileo using Helocentricism to predict what the night sky would look like. What they objected to the idea that anyone, including Galileo, could know what was happening beyond the earth. That there was a method we could use to know what was happening there, in reality.

    So, if not by making better predictions, how could we defend it? Because Geocentricism was a convoluted elaboration of Helocentricism.

    To elaborate, the implicit theory Galileo was force to endorse was essentially as follows: the earth is in, in realty, at rest and the Sun and planets are moving around it a complex manner; however the paths in which they travel are defined in a complex way which, when viewed from the surface of the earth, is also consistent with the sun being at rest and the earth and planets being in motion.

    We can call this The Inquisition’s implicit theory of planetary motion.

    However, if this theory were true, we’d still expect heliocentric theory to make accurate predictions of astronomical observations made from the perspective of the earth’s surface, even though it would be false, in reality. As such, it would appear that any observations that support heliocentric theory would support the Inquisition’s theory as well.

    Furthermore, observations of the phases of Venus appeared to supported heliocentric theory. However, one could extend The Inquisition’s implicit theory by positing even more complex motions, governed by different laws of physics observed here on earth. These laws could be different in precisely the right way to remain consistent with the earth appearing to be in motion.

    In hindsight, all of this complexity seems contrived to us now. However, the church could have argued it seemed absurd at the time, or that it contradicts common-sense and scripture. Why accept a theory were the planets *and* the earth move when we have a theory that works without it.

    But did The Inquisition’s implicit theory really work without adding the complication of heliocentric theory?

    If you asked why someone why a particular planet backtracked across the sky in a particular path based on the The Inquisition’s implicit theory, what would be their response? They would consistently reply, “because that’s how it would look if heliocentric theory were true.” Essentially, we have a cosmology (The Inquisition’s implicit theory) that can be only understood in terms of a different cosmology (heliocentric theory) which it faithfully mimics.

    Notice that the Inquisition’s implicit theory fails to actually solve the problem it claims to solve. It doesn’t explain planetary motion without introducing the complication of heliocentric theory. As such, we can say the The Inquisition’s implied theory is a convoluted elaboration of heliocentric theory. Had the Inquisition taken the very theory they forced Galileo to accept as a serious expiation of reality, they would have realized this, even then.

    Also note that we reached this conclusion not by appealing to modern cosmology, but by taking The Inquisition’s implied theory seriously as an explanation of observed phenomena, on it’s own terms, in reality. We’ve ruled it out not based on experimental testing, but based on the fact that it offers no explanation of it’s own. It’s a bad explanation.

    Both Galileo and The Inquisition were realists. However, The Inquisition’s implied theory has something in common with solipsism. Both draw an arbitrary boundary where human reason supposedly has no access. In this case, problem solving could not be a path to understanding motions in the night sky.

    In the case of solipsists, this boundary surounds their minds (or possibly their immaterial soul.) But in the case of The Inquisition’s implied theory, this boundary surrounded the entire earth.

    However, regardless of where one draws this boundary, we can regard them variants of solipsism. They all consider scientific rationality and problem solving to be inapplicable outside that boundary. It might be useful for making predictions, but it cannot actually explain anything.

    It’s also shares similarities with solipsism since it objects to problem solving as a means to gain knowledge without deriving conclusions based on an ultimate source of justification. Inside the boundary, problem solving is accepted, but for regions deemed outside this boundary, they look elsewhere. In the case of religion, divine relation often plays that role. In the case of Solipsists, only the direct experience of their own thoughts are trusted. To quote Rene Descarte’s classic argument, “I think, therefore I exist”.

    So, again, I think the incident between Galileo and the Inquisition does reflect evidence of the primary conflict between religion and science: religion draws an arbitrary boundary in which scientific reasoning has no access.

    However, Galileo differed in how he perceived the relationship between this physical reality and human ideas, observation and reason. That we, as human beings, can actually know about reality is an important fact about reality itself.

  16. 16
    critical rationalist says:


    No one knows how to test the claim that natural selection is a designer mimic. The ONLY claim that can be tested is that populations change over time. However the change only produces a wobbling stability and never anything that resembles universal common descent.

    ET is making my point for me, by claiming the biosphere is a boundary at which human reasoning and problem solving has no access.

    This is like claiming we cannot know what is beyond the earth because some designer could have surrounded the earth with a giant planetarium which presents a simulation of a heliocentric solar system. Outside this planetarium, there could be anything you like, or even nothing at all. One could even account for modern day observations with the theory that this planetarium further simulates the universe by redirecting radar and laser observations, capturing space probes and sending back simulated telemetry and returning astronauts with fake samples, altered memories, etc. This might sound absurd, but it can’t be ruled out because the earth moving sounded absurd at the time. Do we feel the earth moving?

    No empirical observations could contract this. Yet, it would be a convoluted elaboration of heliocentricism.

    ID represents just such a claim. Some designer could have wanted it that way, so we cannot conclude that anything about the biosphere except that some inexplicable mind in an inexplicable realm did it with some inexplicable means and methods. That’s a variant of solipsism.

  17. 17
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is a fascinating passage from St. Augustine’s The Literal Meaning of Genesis from the fifth century.

    A question also commonly asked is whether these conspicuous lamps in the sky, that is, sun and moon and stars, are equally brilliant, but because of their different distances from the earth appear to our eyes for that reason to vary in brightness. And about the moon those who take this line do not hesitate to say that its light is in itself less than that of the sun, by which they also maintain it is illuminated. Many of the stars, however, so they boldly assert, are equal to the sun, or even greater, but they seem small because they have been set further away. And for us, no doubt, it can be enough to know that whatever the truth may be in this matter, the stars were fashioned by God as their craftsman, although we must hold to what was said with the apostles authority: One is the glory of the sun and another the glory of the moon and another the glory of the moon and another the glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory (I Cor 15:41)

    But they can still say, even if they are not deliberately disagreeing with the apostle: “They do indeed differ in glory, but to the eyes of people on the earth…”The stars do indeed differ in glory in themselves as well: but all the same there are some which are even greater than the sun.”

    Notice that Augustine neither condones nor condemns the view that stars could be in essence be other suns. Of course, the science of his day really couldn’t answer these kind of questions. However, he does show a real respect for what we today call the natural sciences.

  18. 18
    ET says:


    ET is making my point for me, by claiming the biosphere is a boundary at which human reasoning and problem solving has no access

    Except I never made that claim. What I claimed is your position cannot test its claims. ID can. Obviously you are just confused

  19. 19
    critical rationalist says:


    Except I never made that claim.

    Explicitly? No. But you’ve implied it.

    What I claimed is your position cannot test its claims. ID can. Obviously you are just confused

    Like we can test the claim that there is a real universe beyond the earth, as opposed to an advanced simulation of a heliocentric solar system and greater universe? How can you rule that out with evidence?

    We never speak of the existence of dinosaurs, millions of years ago, as an interoperation of our best theories of fossils. Rather, we say that dinosaurs are the explanation for fossils. Nor is the theory primarily about fossils, but about dinosaurs, in that they are assumed to actually exist as part of the explanation.

    And we do so despite the fact that there are an infinite number of rival interpretations of the same data that make all the same predictions, yet say the dinosaurs were not there, millions of years ago, in reality.

    For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations.

    Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn’t apply to them.

    One could suggests It’s meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils. (Which is an example of instrumentalism as found in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.)

    None of these other interpretations are empirically distinguishable from the rational theory of dinosaurs, in that their existence explains fossils. But we discard them because they all represent a general purpose means to deny absolutely anything.

  20. 20
    ET says:

    But you’ve implied it.

    Nope. You may have inferred it through your very biased PoV. But I never implied it.

    We never speak of the existence of dinosaurs,…

    You don’t have a mechanism capable of producing dinosaurs, so that would be a problem for any of your “explanations”.

  21. 21
    critical rationalist says:


    Nope. You may have inferred it through your very biased PoV. But I never implied it.

    Then what is your alternative explanation as to why Neo-darwnism cannot be tested? Please be specific.

    I’m predicting that you response will imply a specific boundary where human reasoning and problems solving cannot be applied that supposedly prevents it from being tested.

    However, it could be that you don’t understand the theory itself.

  22. 22
    critical rationalist says:

    You don’t have a mechanism capable of producing dinosaurs, so that would be a problem for any of your “explanations”.

    I don’t? That’s odd, because I’m suggesting the same overall “mechanism” that provides a universal explanation for the growth in knowledge in the genomes of organisms is also the same universal “mechanism” that explains the growth of knowledge in human brains as well.

    So, apparently, you think nether of us have an explanation?

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Then what is your alternative explanation as to why Neo-darwnism cannot be tested?

    Go ahead and tell us how we can test the claim that ATP synthase, for example, arose via natural selection, drift or any other blind, mindless process.

    However, it could be that you don’t understand the theory itself.

    There isn’t a scientific theory of evolution.

    I don’t? That’s odd, because I’m suggesting the same overall “mechanism” that provides a universal explanation for the growth in knowledge in the genomes of organisms is also the same universal “mechanism” that explains the growth of knowledge in human brains as well.

    Your gibberish isn’t a mechanism that can produce dinosaurs. You lose

Leave a Reply