Luther’s thoughts on Copernicus were as follows:

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

Good point, Martin. If we’re going to follow AIG and insist that the (so-called) “literal” reading of Genesis 1 is the only way to “believe the Bible from the first page”, then why should we stop believing it at page 208? (jn)

Seriously: the arguments being used in defence of geocentrism in the 16th century sound terribly similar to those used in defence of YEC today:

• Scripture’s teaching on this issue is clear, and should trump any human wisdom (however well-attested and convincing it may seem to our sinful minds).
• Scientists who promote theories in contradiction with Scripture are motivated by pride and anti-Christian presuppositions.
• If we let biblical authority slip on this question, then the whole edifice of Christian belief will come crashing down, with dire consequences for the church, society and individuals. (Indeed, it’s arguable that heliocentrism did have those consequences.)

What’s sauce for the goose…

Edit: I should emphasise I’m not trying to start another YEC/evolution discussion here. I recall we dead-horsed that one pretty thoroughly a few months back. What interests me are the criteria those who are YEC but non-geocentrist use to distinguish one position from another. (I can think of a few suggestions, but the point is it only occurs to us to do so because geocentrism is now so “obviously” wrong. The problem with the YEC debate is that for some people YEC is as “obviously” wrong as geocentrism, whereas for others that is not the case. So what this actually turns into is a discussion about the changing nature of “obviousness”…)