Mike Adams and the shape of the Earth

Over at TownHall, Mike Adams writes:

The God-inspired writers of the Bible have always been well ahead of the scientists -- a scenario that hasn't changed from the days of Moses to the days of Darwin, or even now in the 21st century.

Here is one of his examples where he reckons the bible was right and science was wrong.

Isaiah 40:22 "God sits above the circle of the earth. The people below seem like grasshoppers to him! He spreads out the heavens like a curtain and makes his tent from them."

Can you figure out what he thinks the bible got right and the scientists got wrong? Answer later.

As you've probably guessed, Adams is a Creationist. See for example this article, ably demolished by PZ Myers here. In passing, PZ writes:

Now I don't expect every intelligent, educated person to have my same strong opinions on evolution; it is perfectly reasonable for someone outside of biology (Adams' degree is in sociology/criminology) to say that they don't know the evidence and will defer to the experts, but Adams doesn't do that...he goes on and demonstrates his self-righteous ignorance.

Actually Adams' self-righteous ignorance in criminology is just as bad.

Anyway, back to the passage from Isaiah. Here's Adams:

Scientists once thought the earth was flat. Had they read the great prophet Isaiah, they would have learned much earlier about the "circle of the earth." In fact, they could have formed a progressive "Round Earth Society" based on the Bible's teachings.

Except that the passage is ambiguous. The "circle of the earth" could be a flat disc. Other references in the bible support the notion of a flat earth. If you were basing a scientific theory on this passage I think you would end up with a "The Heavens are a Big Tent" theory. And when did scientists think the earth was flat? The Ethical Atheist summarizes the history of the Flat Earth theory:

  • A strong flat earth view was held in Sumerian and Babylonian times.
  • Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers and astrologers made great advances in astronomy and spherical views.
  • Some flat earth thinking was present in pre-medieval and early medieval times. The primary opposition to spherical views was due to theological arguments and scriptural interpretations by the early Church Fathers. They were cornered into their positions by their own beliefs and possibly by fear of reprisals. Fortunately, this view did not prevail!
  • Medieval astronomers, after some delay (!), continued the work of the ancients and made great advances in geography and cartography which culminated in discovery of the New World. The most recent evidence of verifiable, provable flat earth thinking in Medieval times we found was approximately 550 A.D.
  • From the 1800's to present day, we find contemporary historians writing faulty accounts of flat earth thinking during Medieval times. The error of some of these authors is due to misinterpreting historical quotations. We've provided these controversial quotations in CHAPTER 5 - Analysis of 7000 Years of Thinking Regarding Earth's Shape so that readers have an easily accessible resource of quotations from which to make their OWN conclusions.
  • We do not subscribe to the claims made by some authors that the flat earth 'myth' was created, and continues to be promoted, by 'secular writers' in their 'incessant attacks on Christianity'. We also do not subscribe to the claim that flat earth thinking was invented by 'evolutionists and Darwinists' as 'ammunition against the creationists'. Nor are we convinced of evil collaborative conspiracies by American Washington Irving and Frenchman Antoine-Jean Letronne.
  • Still today, we have a handful of people and societies promoting flat earth thinking. It is hard not to view these present-day flat earthers as pure lunatics. On the other hand, maybe they're just after publicity and want their '15 minutes of fame'.

Fortunately profits of certain large corporations don't depend on spreading confusion on the shape of the Earth or the CEI would be making ads mocking Al Gore for his Round Earth Theory.

(Hat tip: Travis G's Two Minute Town Hall.)

More like this

Funny. Isaiah 40:22 is also cited by a creationist astrophysicist (boy, there can't be too many of those!) who argues that it describes an expanding universe. You know, because God "spreads out the heavens like a curtain." If that doesn't take priority over Edwin Hubble, what could? There's more of this strained exegesis in A creationist tells the truth, where I quote Dr. Jason Lisle's explanation of how he bends everything to fit the Bible. He says his worldview requires it. I guess he's not really a scientist after all.

Yep, the Bible gets it right again! Note Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor." So the Earth is either flat or has a negative curvature. Certainly not a sphere.

The problem with all the statements in the Bible (not only from a "scientific" standpoint, but also from a religious perspective) is that they are so g.ddamned ambiguous and statements in different places are often completely at odds with one another.

In other words, there seems to be a little something for everyone in there.

Not only that, it almost seems that this was actually the intention of the original authors (or perhaps the editors).

Related Questions to ponder:

If the Bible's authors got a Pulitzer Prize, could the Bible's editors claim to be Pulitzer Prize Winners as well?

What category of Pulitzer would the Bible fall under?

Would winning the prize make the Bible less credible among the religious right?

Do you think if Mark, Luke (of "Gospel according to" fame) had won a Pulitzer, they would have advertised the fact?

What would have been an appropriate monetary (or possibly other) prize back in the days of Abraham?

I dig this comment from Adams

I suspect that many of those who see me as a backwards (or back woods) fundamentalist will be shocked to read the passages in this short column. That's because, until now, most of them have been too narrow-minded to take the time to read the Bible.

There is no way to make a credible claim that any of the Bible verses he quotes show any evidence for knowledge about the natural world that was unusual at the times the books of the Bible were written.

The fact that he credits Hugh Ross with sending him that set of Bible verses - rather than picking them out himself from the book he has read 8 times (if I recall correctly) - make me inclined to view Adams as backwards back woods fundamentalist.

I'd say assuming that anyone who disagrees with you on the relationship between the Bible and science hasn't read The Bible qualifies one as a backwards fundamentalist.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 01 Aug 2006 #permalink

>> Isaiah 40:22 "God sits above the circle of the earth. The people below seem like grasshoppers to him! He spreads out the heavens like a curtain and makes his tent from them."

> Can you figure out what he thinks the bible got right and the scientists got wrong?

Was it that God is pissed about all the grasshoppers in his tent?

I'm pretty cheesed about all the fruit-flies in my flat, so I can sympathize.