The Copernican Myths

The December 2007 issue of Physics Today had a very interesting article that debunks several myths that our science teachers and textbooks have promulgated regarding how Copernicus's ideas were received.

One reason that it was especially interesting is that I hadn't actually realized that much of the stories regarding how his research was perceived are grossly wrong (though, in retrospect, I'm hardly surprised). The other was because of the parallel it draws with any significant scientific advancement and the parallel which I drew with the current ID garbage (or "rubbish", as the people here like to say).

Basically, the original way it was received was the same as we'd expect any new theory that doesn't offer immediate predictive/explanatory advances to be received. The advantages came later and took some time and the scientific establishment accepted the Copernican theory gradually not from overcoming religious nonsense but because of it did a better job of explaining the new data. Sounds very familiar, right? We could have been talking about any number of more recent theories.

The religious attacks on the Copernican theory also came gradually and, according to the article, seemed to be largely politically motivated. This also seems very familiar and here, unfortunately, the parallel is with attacks on Darwin. (All praise the FSM!)