As to the rival concept of heliocentrism, it is debatable whether the Copernican theory as such contradicts the notion of geocentcality. It is a fact that relative to a heliocentric coordinate system-“under this orderly arrangement,” as Copernicus writes- “a wonderful symmetry in the universe, and a definite relation of harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs, of a kind not possible to obtain in any other way,“ is brought to light; but does this prove that it is the Earth and not the Sun that moves? From a mathematical point of view the question does not even make sense: which body moves depends upon our choice of coordinates. Whether we perceive geocentrism to be compromised by the Copernican discovery depends ultimately, not on scientific fact, but on our philosophic orientatison. The discovery itself does no more than reveal a hitherto unrecognized “relation of harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs” -ad majorem Dei gloriam, a Christian can say. No wonder Pope Clement was delighted, and encouraged the Polish savant to publish his findings. The conflict over heliocentrism, as one knows, did not erupt until the following century, when Galileo promulgated, not simply a mathematical theory, but an entire worldview. As I have pointed out repeatedly, it is precisely the bifurcation postulate implicit in Galilee’s distinction between the so-called primary and secondary qualities that underlies the scientistic Weltanschauung as its basic plank. One sees in retrospect that the famous dispute was not just about astronomical facts, as one likes nowadays to believe, but that underneath the surface a much larger issue was at stake, an issue which vitally affects the Church. As concerns the contemporary cosmologies, the crucial point to be noted is that these are based not simply on empirical facts and known physical laws, but require in addition a third ingredient of a very different kind: a cosmological model, namely.
But whence are these models derived? How, in particular, does one arrive at the model that underlies the most famous cosmology of our day, the so-called big bang cosmology? Here is what Stephen Hawking and George Ellis have to say on this question:
“We are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology. In the earliest cosmologies, man placed himself in a commanding position at the centre of the universe. Since the time of Copernicus we have been steadily demoted to a medium sized planet going around a medium sized star on the outer edge of a fairly average galaxy, which is itself simply one of a local group of galaxies. Indeed we are now so democratic that we would not claim our position in space is specially distinguished in any way. We shall, following Bondi, call this assumption the Copernican principle. A reasonable interpretation of this somewhat vague principle is to understand it as implying that, when viewed on a suitable scale, the universe is approximately spatially homogeneous.“
It appears that the geocentric worldview was cast out, not on the strength of scientific facts or known laws of physics, but indeed on ideological grounds. The problem with geocentrism is that it smacks of intelligent design. It happens that the founders of modern cosmology espoused an
ideology that favors chance or randomness over the notion of an intelligent
creator; fundamentally, big bang cosmology is Darwinism on a cosmic scale.
