Modern public education and mass popular culture often portray the history of science as an epic of “reason triumphing over superstition” and “science opposing religion.” Yet the consensus among historians of science is quite the opposite: the so-called “conflict thesis” is largely a nineteenth-century myth. A growing body of scholarship shows that the birth of modern science was deeply indebted to the biblical worldview. From Copernicus to Newton, every major figure of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Scientific Revolution was profoundly shaped by Christian faith. This article will demonstrate how the Bible provided indispensable foundations for modern science and will analyze why other civilizations failed to give rise to it.

Table of Contents

Part I: The Foundations of Science — Four Indispensable Biblical Foundations

I. Ontology: The Universe Is Real, Orderly, and Worthy of Being Studied

1. The Reality of the World

The Bible declares, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). The world is not an illusion, not an extension of God’s being, but a real and stable created order, and therefore worthy of serious investigation. By contrast, Hinduism regards the world as illusion; pantheism identifies nature itself with God; idealism treats matter as merely a product of consciousness—each of which undermines the foundations of science.

Within Greek essentialism, natural phenomena were explained as necessary manifestations of an object’s “essence,” leaving no room for universal laws discoverable through experience. Aristotle, for example, claimed that stones fall because their essence is heavy, and fire rises because its essence is light. Such circular explanations rendered experimentation unnecessary.

In polytheistic systems, natural phenomena were attributed to the arbitrary wills of the gods (lightning as Zeus’ weapon, waves as Poseidon’s moods), thereby ruling out the possibility of predicting universal laws governing nature. Neoplatonic panentheism viewed all things as emanations of divinity, while Stoic pantheism equated nature with God; consequently, studying nature was identical with knowing God, and therefore there is no independent concept of “natural law”.

Only biblical creation simultaneously establishes three elements: the transcendence of the Creator, the independence of the created order, and the orderliness instituted by God. These together provide the ontological basis for the concept of universal natural laws. Without them, science collapses either into mysticism (losing order), into idealism or fatalism (losing independence), or into nihilism (losing meaning).

2. The Knowability of the World

Albert Einstein famously remarked, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” (Albert Einstein, quoted in Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann, eds., Albert Einstein: The Human Side [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979], 18). Scripture proclaims that God created an ordered world: the heavens are structured, life reproduces “according to its kind” (Gen. 1). Since God designed the universe with wisdom (Prov. 8:22–31) and created human beings in His image, human reason is capable of understanding the cosmos. This directly answers the epistemological question: why is the world intelligible at all?

3. The Odered Contingency of the World

Science presupposes that the world is neither necessary (as in Greek philosophy) nor arbitrary (as in occasionalism). If the world were “necessary” (as in Greek philosophy), the universal constants would require no explanation, and the concept of “design” would be meaningless. If the world were arbitrary, laws could change at any moment, and inductive reasoning would fail. Only biblical creation affirms an ordered contingency:

  1. God freely chose to create (contingency): the world is not necessarily the way it is, so humanity must investigate it through observation.
  2. God faithfully sustains order (lawfulness): natural laws are reliable, making science possible.

Historian Peter Harrison notes that Christian creation doctrine endowed nature with “ordered contingency”—neither necessary nor arbitrary, but the product of God’s free will and therefore knowable only through empirical investigation (Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015], 89). Kepler’s abandonment of “perfect circular orbits” in favor of ellipses flowed from his conviction that God’s design transcends human notions of perfection. This marked the birth of the scientific method: not deducing necessity, but observing actuality (Johannes Kepler, Harmonices Mundi [Linz, 1619], Book V, ch. 3).

II. Epistemology: The Order of the Universe Can Be Understood with Reason

If human beings are merely the accidental products of evolution, why should our rational faculties correspond so precisely to the rational structure of the universe? Physicist Eugene Wigner therefore spoke of “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences,” calling it “a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve” (Eugene P. Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 13, no. 1 [1960]: 1–14). John Frame responds that the very possibility of human knowledge is grounded in the doctrine of the image of God; without divine self-revelation, the reliability of reason itself is inexplicable (see John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God [Phillipsburg: P&R, 1987], 75).

“And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion…’” (Gen. 1:26). This passage establishes three safeguards for science:

  1. Rational Capacity: humans are created in God’s image and thus possess rational capacity for truth.
  2. The Dominion Mandate: God commands humanity to “subdue the earth” (Gen. 1:28). Scientific inquiry fulfills this stewardship mandate as an act of obedient exploration. As Calvin noted, we study nature not to challenge God’s authority but to marvel at His wisdom in His works (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.2.15).
  3. The Guarantee of Reliability: human reason is impaired by the Fall yet remains instrumentally effective under grace. Through common grace, God restrains the noetic effects of sin so that fallen human reason can still observe, induct, calculate, and reason logically. Only special grace, however, directs knowledge rightly toward God as its ultimate source. Unbelieving scientists suppress the truth regarding ultimate questions—why the universe is ordered and what knowledge is for (Rom. 1:18, 25). Scientific inquiry thus becomes a dual struggle: against nature’s mysteries and against human pride and bias.

III. Methodology: Natural Laws Are Stable, Uniform, and Predictable

“Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth…” (Jer. 33:25); “in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). Divine providence is the guarantee of scientific method. The constancy of natural law rests on God’s covenantal faithfulness, especially His covenant with all creation in the Noahic covenant: “While the earth remains… day and night shall not cease” (Gen. 8:22).

  1. Stability of natural law: Newton understood laws of nature not as self-sufficient systems, but as regular expressions of God’s faithful providence. Confidence in laws was fundamentally confidence in a covenant-keeping God (Isaac Newton, Principia, Rule III; Letters to Richard Bentley, 1692–93).
  2. Repeatability of experiments: If God faithfully sustains order, identical conditions yield identical outcomes. Faraday trusted experimental reproducibility precisely because God does not change (Geoffrey N. Cantor, Michael Faraday: Sandemanian and Scientist, 214). This trust itself is a testimony to providence.
  3. Rejection of mechanism: Newton rejected Cartesian mechanism: “If the universe were self-sufficient, God would be unnecessary; but gravity shows that the universe constantly requires divine maintenance” (Isaac Newton, Opticks, Query 31). Van Til later observed that natural laws are not independent of God but are modes of His continual presence and governance (Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 112).

IV. Teleology: Studying Nature Is Valuable, Meaningful, and Glorifies God

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork.” (Ps. 19:1); “……His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world……” (Rom. 1:20). Science does not merely uncover laws; it bears witness to divine glory.

  1. The theology of the “two books”: In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius: “The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” He argued that God reveals Himself through two books—Scripture and nature—which, as revelations from the same God, cannot truly contradict each other (Galileo Galilei, “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,” 1615). This expresses the harmony between general and special revelation. Yet the Reformation radically transformed its effect. Medieval scholars read the “book of nature” allegorically (e.g., wind symbolizing the Spirit). Reformation hermeneutics—especially within the Reformed tradition—emphasized literal interpretation, training believers to read Scripture carefully and textually. This habit was unconsciously transferred to nature, leading scientists to focus on empirical data rather than allegory. Modern empirical science thus emerged from Reformation hermeneutics (Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, 64–65, 107–110).
  2. Science as worship: Kepler concluded The Harmony of the World with a prayer thanking God for allowing him to glimpse the beauty of creation and asking forgiveness if he sought personal glory rather than God’s (Johannes Kepler, Harmonices Mundi, Book V, ch. 9). Scientific inquiry thus became an act of worship.
  3. The intrinsic value of knowledge: Traditional Chinese “practical statecraft” prized practical technology but undervalued pure theory. By contrast, the biblical worldview assigns intrinsic value to studying creation because it reveals God’s glory (Ps. 19:1). James Clerk Maxwell’s refusal of commercial gain in favor of theoretical work exemplifies this “worshipful science” (Colin A. Russell, Cross-Currents, 145).

Part Two: The Scientific Revolution — The Biblical Worldview Triumphs over Greek Philosophy

I. The Truth of the Revolution: A Clash of Worldviews

The contemporary consensus among historians of science is that the Scientific Revolution constituted a breakthrough of the biblical worldview over the constraints of Greek philosophy. Historian of science Ronald L. Numbers observes: “The ‘conflict thesis’ of religion and science is dead in the scholarly world; no serious historian believes any longer that Christianity retarded the development of science” (Ronald L. Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009], 1).

The most common popular objection to this conclusion is the so-called Galileo Affair. Yet, as historians such as James Hannam have shown, this episode was not a case of ‘science versus religion.’ Galileo himself was a devout believer. His principal conflict did not arise from Scripture, but from entrenched Aristotelianism within the Roman Catholic Church—that is, from an outdated philosophical paradigm.

While Greek philosophy contributed valuable logical tools (such as Euclidean geometry), it also imposed significant intellectual constraints. The essence of the Galileo conflict lay in three interrelated struggles:

  1. A conflict of scientific paradigms (empirical observation vs. Greek philosophical speculation);
  2. A conflict over interpretive authority (who has the right to interpret biblical passages concerning astronomy);
  3. A conflict over scientific authority (Galileo presented heliocentrism as a fact rather than as a mere hypothesis, as required by Church authorities at the time).

Nevertheless, this episode has often been distorted by critics to serve the so-called conflict myth (James Hannam, God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science [London: Icon Books, 2009], 284–99).

Historian Peter Harrison further argues that portraying the Scientific Revolution as a “victory over religion” is itself a nineteenth-century myth (Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015], 164). Historical evidence clearly demonstrates that Christian theology provided the ontological and epistemological foundations for modern science. The four giants of the Scientific Revolution—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton—were not only intellectual geniuses but were also deeply shaped by the biblical worldview. Their scientific achievements flowed from confidence in God’s creation and its rational order.

II. Intellectual Shackles: Why Greek Philosophy Could Not Give Birth to Science

  1. Essentialism: Obstructing Experimental Inquiry.
    Aristotle held that the behavior of objects is determined by their essences, leading to circular explanations that discouraged experimentation (e.g., “stones fall because they are heavy”). Galileo overturned this view through inclined-plane experiments, demonstrating that acceleration is independent of a body’s “essence” (Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems [Florence, 1632], Day 2).
  2. Primacy of Final Causes: Misleading Scientific Investigation.
    Aristotle prioritized the question of why (final causes) over how (mechanisms). Newton explicitly rejected speculation about final causes, restricting himself to describing laws: hypotheses non fingo (“I frame no hypotheses”) (Isaac Newton, General Scholium to the Principia, 2nd ed. [1713]).
  3. Distrust of the Senses: Undermining Observation.
    Plato regarded the sensory world as mere shadows in a cave, thereby devaluing empirical experience. Galileo’s telescopic observations of lunar mountains demonstrated that the heavens were not perfect, shattering a classical Greek taboo (Galileo Galilei, Sidereus Nuncius [Venice, 1610]).
  4. Veneration of Perfect Forms: Constraining Mathematical Description.
    Aristotle insisted that celestial motion must be circular because the circle was the “most perfect” form. Kepler abandoned this aesthetic ideal, submitting mathematical models to the Creator’s actual design and accepting elliptical orbits (Johannes Kepler, Astronomia Nova [Prague, 1609]; Harmonices Mundi [Linz, 1619], Book IV).
  5. Doctrine of Eternal Necessity: Denial of Creation.
    Greek philosophy viewed the universe as eternal and its laws as necessary. Biblical creation doctrine, by contrast, affirms a beginning and laws grounded in God’s free will (Gen. 1:1), requiring experimental investigation to discern God’s purposes (Reijer Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972], 21).
  6. Hierarchical Cosmology: Fragmenting Physics.
    Greek thought divided reality into a corruptible terrestrial realm and an incorruptible celestial realm, resulting in dual physics. Newton unified heaven and earth through universal gravitation, echoing Scripture: “in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). This unification was not a “disenchantment” of the cosmos, as Koyré lamented, but rather a de-idolization, as Hooykaas observed. By stripping nature of divinity, the biblical worldview made objective scientific investigation possible (Rom. 1:25).

III. Copernicus’s Challenge: Divine Design Implies Inner Harmony

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), a Polish Catholic, Doctor of Canon Law, and canon of Frombork Cathedral, published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543, proposing heliocentrism and earning the title “father of modern astronomy.”

The Ptolemaic system employed deferents, epicycles, and eccentrics—originally about forty circles, later expanded to seventy or eighty to improve accuracy. Copernicus’s heliocentric model still required over thirty circles and was neither mathematically simpler nor more accurate. Its true significance lay in conceptual simplification: retrograde motion became a natural observational effect of Earth’s motion, and relative planetary distances could be determined—something impossible under geocentrism.

Copernicus’s choice reflected a theological conviction: God’s design must exhibit inner harmony. Thus, he favored conceptual unity over mere computational convenience. Mathematical beauty—simplicity and symmetry—emerged as a new criterion of truth.

地心模型的描述显示著复杂性。
Geocentric model.
基本的、简明扼要的哥白尼宇宙。
Copernican model of the universe.

True technical simplification arrived with Kepler. By abandoning the Greek ideal of perfect circles and accepting elliptical orbits, epicycles became unnecessary. Kepler’s three laws replaced the entire epicycle system. This breakthrough flowed from his theological conviction: “The actual design of God (ellipses) is superior to human imaginings of perfection (circles). Theory must submit to God’s real creation, not to philosophical presuppositions” (Kepler, Astronomia Nova, Introduction; Harmonices Mundi, Book IV).

The progression from Ptolemy to Copernicus and then to Kepler reveals the true nature of the Scientific Revolution: it was not a merely technical advance from “more than eighty circles” to “zero circles,” but a worldview breakthrough—from the Greek philosophical veneration of the “perfect circle” to an empirical submission grounded in biblical creationism. Copernicus challenged the presupposition of geocentrism, but he did not challenge the presupposition of circular motion. Only Kepler, guided by the biblical principle of conditional contingency, fully cast off the constraints of Greek philosophy, allowing observation to take precedence over rational speculation. This alone constituted a genuine return to a biblical scientific method. Neither humanity, nor the Earth, nor even the Sun is the center of the universe—God alone is.

IV. Galileo’s Weapon: The “Two Books” Overturn Celestial Perfection

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), an Italian Catholic, improved the telescope in 1609. Between 1610 and 1613 he discovered Jupiter’s four largest moons, the mountains of the Moon, and the phases of Venus. In 1632 he published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, and in 1638 he laid the foundations of kinematics. He is acclaimed as “the father of modern science, modern physics, and observational astronomy.”

1. Galileo’s Christian Faith and Scientific Motivation

Galileo is often portrayed in secular narratives as an “anti-religious martyr.” The historical truth, however, is that his scientific work was fundamentally a practical outworking of a theological vocation. Galileo understood scientific investigation as reading “God’s second book”—that is, general revelation. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, he repeatedly emphasized the harmony between Scripture and nature, writing that “Scripture and Nature alike proceed from the divine word,” and that “Nature precisely executes the laws imposed by God, never violating them” (Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina [1615], in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, trans. Stillman Drake, 175, 182). He also cited the early Church Father Tertullian: “We first know God through nature, and then more fully through doctrine” (ibid., 175–216).

2. Telescopic Observations: Overthrowing the Greek Doctrine of Celestial Perfection

Aristotle’s “hierarchical cosmos” posited that the sublunary sphere consists of the four elements—earth, water, air, and fire—subject to change, decay, and impermanence, with motion being linear (having a beginning and an end, tending toward its natural place: earth and water toward the universe’s center, air and fire away from it). The supralunar realm, by contrast, consisted of the incorruptible, immutable “fifth element,” aether, whose pure matter necessarily moved in perfect circular motion (beginningless, eternal, symmetrical, uniform). This teaching was absorbed by the medieval Roman Catholic Church and became scholastic orthodoxy. Consequently, the notion that “the heavens must be perfectly smooth” was not merely a scientific hypothesis but a non-biblical philosophical-theological dogma.

Galileo’s shocking “heretical” observations directly overturned this view:

  1. “The Moon is not a smooth sphere but rugged, full of enormous prominences, deep valleys, and crevices… much like the Earth’s surface” (Galileo Galilei, Sidereus Nuncius [Venice, 1610], 8–10). He even calculated the height of lunar mountains (about four miles), demonstrating that celestial bodies are composed of the same material as Earth.
  2. Jupiter’s four moons (later called the “Galilean satellites”) orbit Jupiter, forming a “miniature solar system,” proving that Earth is not the unique center of motion and that celestial bodies can revolve around non-Earth centers, supporting the Copernican hypothesis.
  3. Venus exhibits a full sequence of phases, from new to full, possible only if it orbits the Sun—direct evidence for heliocentrism (Galileo Galilei, Letters on Sunspots [Rome, 1613]).

Galileo’s telescopic observations marked a fundamental shift in scientific methodology: truth is not derived from philosophical deduction but from observation of the created world. The theological foundation of this shift lies in the biblical doctrine of creation and its principle of “conditional contingency”: if the world were necessary, as Greek philosophy supposed, one could deduce its nature through reason alone (e.g., “the heavens must be perfect”); if the world is freely created by God, one must determine God’s actual design through observation (e.g., “the Moon really has mountains”).

Galileo wrote: “Natural philosophy is not learned from reading Aristotle’s books, but from reading that great book which ever lies open before our eyes—the universe itself” (Stillman Drake, Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978], 163). This expresses a biblical epistemology: the created world is God’s “second book,” authoritative and to be seriously “read” (observed) rather than distorted by human philosophical preconceptions.

3. The Inclined Plane Experiment: Overthrowing Aristotelian “Essence Theory”

Aristotle’s theory of “natural motion” held that heavier bodies fall faster than lighter ones (“a stone falls faster because it is heavy”), with velocity proportional to the object’s “essential weight.” This “law of nature” required no experimental verification and dominated thought for nearly 2,000 years because it “made sense” to ordinary experience (feathers fall more slowly than stones).

Galileo first exposed the logical contradiction of Aristotle’s theory through a thought experiment: “Suppose a heavy stone falls at speed 8 and a light stone at speed 4. If they are tied together, Aristotle would predict the light stone slows the heavy one, giving a speed less than 8; yet by Aristotle’s other principle, the combined weight should fall faster than 8. Contradiction! Therefore, Aristotle’s premises must be wrong” (Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems [Florence, 1632], Day 1). He then confirmed this experimentally: spheres of different weights released from the same height simultaneously reach the bottom (ignoring air resistance), showing that fall time depends not on weight but on height and acceleration.

Why did Galileo dare challenge authority experimentally? Because of his theological presuppositions:

  1. The created world possesses independent authority: “Nature never violates its laws… it cares nothing whether human reasoning approves” (Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina [1615], in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, 175–216). If nature is God’s creation, it contains objective truth independent of human opinion. Experimentation is not “questioning God” but “submitting to God’s revelation.”
  2. God may design differently than human notions of perfection: Aristotle erred in equating human rational reasoning with natural truth. Galileo maintained: “God can create the world in ways unexpected by us; therefore we must humbly observe rather than arrogantly speculate” (ibid.). This expresses the principle of conditional contingency: the world is not rationally necessary but freely created by God; hence empirical observation takes precedence over philosophical deduction.
4. The Truth of the Galileo Affair: Not “Science vs. Religion” but “Empiricism vs. Philosophy”

Popular culture often depicts Galileo as a “science martyr persecuted by religion.” The historical truth is:

  1. The core conflict was not Scripture but Aristotelian philosophy. Galileo’s primary opponents were scholastics committed to Aristotle, especially conservative Jesuits and Dominicans. These scholars linked Aristotle’s cosmos to biblical interpretation, believing that challenging the former equaled challenging the latter (James Hannam, God’s Philosophers, 284–99). Pope Urban VIII had been friendly toward Galileo, allowing in 1624 discussion of heliocentrism as a hypothesis. Galileo’s trial resulted from his arrogance and political missteps: in the Dialogue he presented heliocentrism as fact, not hypothesis, and mocked the Pope, provoking censure.
  2. The real conflict was a clash of scientific paradigms: as Thomas Kuhn notes, “The Galileo affair is essentially a paradigmatic case of the Scientific Revolution—where the new paradigm (empiricism, mathematical physics) challenges the old (scholasticism, essence theory), and entrenched powers (Aristotelians within the Roman Church) resist the change using institutional authority” (Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, 219–25).

Plato-Aristotle tradition held that truth resides in the “world of Forms” or “Essences,” while sensory observation only grasps appearances and is unreliable; hence, reason supersedes experience. If Galileo had accepted Aristotle’s skepticism of the senses, lunar mountains under the telescope would have been “optical illusions,” Venus’ phases explained via more complex epicycles, and Aristotle’s authority would trump observation. Galileo insisted on observation first, grounded in two theological presuppositions:

  1. God does not deceive our senses: “God gave us senses, reason, and intellect… He does not allow our senses to deceive us, then require reason to correct them, only to declare reason wrong” (Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, 175–216). This is an epistemological corollary of the imago Dei: humans are created in God’s image, so God-given senses are reliable when used properly.
  2. The created world is God’s “second revelation,” authoritative: “Nature is God’s work, Scripture is God’s word. But nature never violates its laws, whereas human interpretation may err” (ibid.). This legitimizes interpreting the “book of nature” in light of Scripture: when clear natural evidence conflicts with traditional exegesis, exegesis must be corrected rather than denying the evidence.

Without these two presuppositions, Galileo might have interpreted telescopic observations conservatively (“optical illusion,” “atmospheric refraction”) rather than drawing revolutionary conclusions (imperfect heavens); like many contemporaries, he could have abandoned heliocentrism under Church pressure. Secularizing science from faith would not have motivated his Letter to Christina. Contemporary Jesuit astronomer Christoph Scheiner observed the same sunspots but insisted they were “shadows of small planets,” because he could not accept an imperfect Sun (Christoph Scheiner, Rosa Ursina, 1626–1630).

5. Galileo’s Contribution: Three Revolutions in Scientific Methodology

Galileo’s contribution was not only specific discoveries but three methodological revolutions:

  1. Observation over authority: “In natural science, the authority of a thousand Democrituses is not worth the reasoning of any lowly individual if he can give a better explanation” (Galileo Galilei, Letter to Ingoli, 1624).
  2. Mathematics as the language of nature: “Philosophy [i.e., natural philosophy/physics] is written in that great book which ever lies open before our eyes… written in the language of mathematics, whose characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures” (Galileo Galilei, The Assayer, 1623).
  3. Experiment as interrogation of nature: Galileo’s inclined plane experiments were not passive observation but actively designed conditions to “question” natural laws. This reflects the “dominion mandate” (Gen. 1:28): humans have the authority to study and test creation because it is divinely assigned.

Historian Alexandre Koyré summarizes: “Galileo is not only the founder of modern science but also the founder of the modern scientific worldview. He provided legitimacy to empirical method through the theology of the ‘two books,’ confidence for human reason through the imago Dei, and stability for natural laws through the doctrine of providence. It is the combination of these three that forms the true foundation of modern science” (Alexandre Koyré, Galileo Studies, trans. John Mepham, 205–7).

The Galileo affair reveals a deeper issue: who has the authority to interpret Scripture regarding natural phenomena? Scholastic tradition held that the Roman Church possessed sole interpretive authority, maintaining Scripture’s literal meaning (e.g., Joshua 10:12–13, “the Sun stood still”), hence heliocentrism was seen as contrary to Scripture. Galileo’s hermeneutical principle was that Scripture’s purpose is “to teach men how to go to heaven, not how heaven goes.” It employs phenomenal language (e.g., “sunrise”) to accommodate common understanding, not as a scientific textbook; when literal interpretation conflicts with clear natural evidence, non-literal interpretation should prevail (e.g., Psalm 119:90, “You established the Earth” does not imply geocentrism). Therefore, the Galileo affair was not religion obstructing science but human tradition usurping Scripture. As Van Til observes: “The Galileo affair demonstrates that it was not ‘Scripture against science,’ but ‘erroneous interpretation of Scripture against correct observation of nature.’ Only a return to Scripture itself—rather than Roman Catholic tradition—can provide true freedom for science” (Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 124).

V. Kepler’s Obedience: Listening to God’s Cosmic Symphony

Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), German, Lutheran. In 1609, he discovered the first and second laws of planetary motion (elliptical orbit and area law), published in Astronomia Nova (The New Astronomy). In 1619, he discovered the third law of planetary motion (the harmonic law, T² ∝ a³), published in Harmonices Mundi (The Harmony of the World). In 1619, he discovered the theory of celestial music, translating planetary velocity ratios into musical intervals. He is known as the “Father of Celestial Mechanics.”

Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion
Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion
1. From Data to Laws: A Mission Impossible

Modern popular culture often overlooks a remarkable fact: Kepler’s extraction of the three laws of planetary motion from Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe’s (1546–1601) observational data was an “almost impossible” feat, both mathematically and philosophically.

Although Tycho’s observational data had already reached the limit of the naked eye (accurate to about 2 arc minutes), it still contained: atmospheric refraction errors, systematic instrument errors, complex superimposed effects of Earth’s rotation and revolution, and minor perturbations from other planets’ gravity (whose existence was unknown at the time). Without the correct theoretical framework presupposed, these data were just a pile of chaotic numbers. Kepler needed to identify the signal within the noise, without even knowing the shape of the signal. If one were to fit the laws of motion from observational data, the space of possibilities was astronomically large:

  • Possibilities for orbital shape: Circles and their variants (eccentric circles, concentric circles, multiple circles), ellipses (different eccentricities, different focal positions), ovoid curves (which Kepler himself attempted), higher-order curves (parabolas, hyperbolas, spirals, cycloids, etc.). There were >10⁴ possible types of orbital shapes.
  • Possibilities for velocity laws: Uniform velocity? Related to distance (proportional, inversely proportional, squared, square root…)? Related to angle (sine, cosine, tangent…)? Related to time? Related to area (this is the correct answer, but extremely unintuitive)? Multi-variable combinations? There were >10⁴ possible velocity laws.
  • Possibilities for period relationships: T ∝ a (linear), T ∝ a², T² ∝ a³ (the correct answer), T³ ∝ a², T ∝ √a, combinations involving eccentricity, mass, and other parameters. There were >10⁴ possible period relationships.

If Kepler’s discovery process is viewed as “randomly trying all possible theoretical combinations,” the total possibility space is at least 10⁴ × 10⁴ × 10⁴ = 10¹² possible theoretical combinations. Even if each attempt required only 1 day to verify, an exhaustive search would require: 10¹² days ≈ 2.7 billion years. This is still under the ideal condition that every possibility could be clearly defined and quickly tested; in reality, most combinations would require complex geometric constructions and tedious numerical calculations. This helps us understand the enormity of Kepler’s task. Tycho himself possessed this data for 20 years (1576–1597) but failed to discover any laws. Contemporary astronomers such as Longomontanus (Tycho’s chief assistant) and Maestlin (Kepler’s teacher) also used similar data but remained trapped in the “circular orbit” framework. Longomontanus even continued using this data for 30 years after Tycho’s death, publishing Astronomia Danica, still employing a complex epicycle system. Why did only Kepler succeed? Science historian James Voelkel commented: “Without Kepler’s unique theological-mathematical worldview, he could not have found his way out of the labyrinth of data. His success was not a ‘replicable method’ but an ‘arrangement of Providence’—the right person, at the right time, with the right beliefs, facing the right data” (James R. Voelkel, Johannes Kepler and the New Astronomy [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 123).

2. Kepler’s “Theological Compass”: How Biblical Presuppositions Guided Discovery

Kepler’s success was not through exhaustive enumeration but through inspiration; not a technical victory of data analysis but a result of a biblical worldview. His biblical presuppositions provided threefold navigation for exploration:

(1) Theological Presupposition One: God’s Design Must Be Simple and Harmonious

Kepler wrote in Mysterium Cosmographicum: “God is a geometer. He created the universe according to geometric principles; therefore, the structure of the universe must necessarily embody mathematical simplicity and harmony” (Johannes Kepler, Mysterium Cosmographicum [Tübingen, 1596], Preface). This belief enabled him to:

  • Reject the Ptolemaic system’s more than 80 epicycles because they were too complex, “unworthy of God’s wisdom.”
  • Reject his own early design of “ovoid orbits,” which, although they could fit the data, had ugly mathematical expressions (Johannes Kepler, Astronomia Nova [Prague, 1609], Chapters 40–45).
  • Finally accept the ellipse—simple, elegant, and the Sun’s position at the focus had theological significance: “The Sun at the focus is like the Father in the glorious position of the universe.”

The principle of simplicity reduced the 10⁴ orbital shapes to approximately 10² mathematically elegant options (the conic section family). Without the presupposition that “God is a God of order,” Kepler might have been lost among countless complex curves that could fit the data.

(2) Theological Presupposition Two: God’s Creation Must Be Known Through Observation

The belief in “contingent rationality”—that “God creates freely, and humans cannot deduce by reason but must observe”—enabled Kepler to dare to question the 2,000-year tradition of “circular perfection,” insisting on “making theory submit to data” rather than the reverse. He refused to ignore the 8 arc minute deviation between Tycho’s data and circular orbit theory. Kepler discovered that, according to circular orbit theory, no matter how circles were combined, there was always a tiny error of 8 arc minutes (about 0.13 degrees) between the calculated position of Mars and Tycho’s observational data. To eliminate these 8 arc minutes, Kepler abandoned the perfect circle, tried the ellipse, and found that the model perfectly matched the data. He wrote: “God gave us an observer as precise as Tycho Brahe; we must acknowledge God’s gift. If I ignore this 8 arc minute deviation, I am ignoring what God is saying to me through Tycho” (Johannes Kepler, Astronomia Nova [Prague, 1609], Introduction).

The principle of empirical priority excluded all “philosophically necessary models” (such as “perfect circles”) that contradicted observation, reducing velocity laws to the order of 10¹. This attitude was extremely rare at the time; contemporary scholars would rather modify data or add small epicycles than abandon circular orbits, because Aristotelian philosophy held that the heavens must necessarily be perfect.

(3) Theological Presupposition Three: God’s Providence Guarantees the Stability and Universality of Laws

Kepler’s third law revealed the unified relationship between the periods and orbits of all planets. This discovery was based on his belief: “God created all planets with the same wisdom; therefore, there must be a unified mathematical law running through them” (Johannes Kepler, Harmonices Mundi [Linz, 1619], Book V, ch. 3. English translation: The Harmony of the World, trans. E.J. Aiton, A.M. Duncan, and J.V. Field [Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1997]).

The principle of universal laws guided him to seek relationships applicable to all planets rather than building independent models for each planet. This reduced the search space for velocity laws and period relationships to the order of 10². If Kepler had believed that each planet was governed by a different god (polytheism), or that the universe had no unified order (occasionalism), he would not have sought “universal laws” at all.

Kepler obtained Tycho’s data in 1600, published Astronomia Nova (containing the first and second laws) in 1609, and discovered the third law in 1619—a total of approximately 9 years. Because Kepler’s threefold theological presuppositions “optimized” the search algorithm, the search space decreased from 10¹² combinations to 10⁴ possibilities. If each attempt required 1 day, the total would be 10⁴ days ≈ 27 years. Even considering Kepler’s inspiration, mathematical genius, the fact that some attempts could be excluded through logical reasoning (without complete calculation), and the high quality of Tycho’s data (reducing noise interference), this was still an enormous workload.

Academic commentary on this includes:

  • Philosopher of science Michael Polanyi pointed out: “Scientific discovery is never an automatic process of ‘data induction’ but requires guidance from a ‘presuppositional framework.’ Kepler’s success proves that the correct worldview is not only helpful for science but is a necessary condition for the birth of science” (Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958], 6–7, 143).
  • Science historian Owen Gingerich further noted: “Kepler spent nearly ten years trying various orbital models—including ovoids of his own invention—before finally accepting the ellipse. Had he given up midway (like other astronomers), or had he clung to the circular dogma (like Tycho), the birth of modern astronomy would have been delayed by decades or even centuries. His success was not inevitable but a unique combination of theological conviction and scientific talent” (Owen Gingerich, The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler [New York: American Institute of Physics, 1993], 305, 308–310).
  • Science revolution historian Bernard Cohen concluded: “The discovery of Kepler’s laws is the best case in the history of science of ‘theory preceding observation.’ Without correct theoretical expectation (provided by theology), the observer will drown in a sea of data” (I. Bernard Cohen, Revolution in Science [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985], 136).
3. Celestial Music: Describing Planetary Motion with Staff Notation

In the preface to Harmonices Mundi, Kepler quoted Job 38:7: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,” believing this to be a prophecy of God’s creation of cosmic harmony (Johannes Kepler, Harmonices Mundi [Linz, 1619], Proemium. English translation: The Harmony of the World, trans. E.J. Aiton, A.M. Duncan, and J.V. Field [Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1997]).

In Book V of Harmonices Mundi, he drew the “musical melodies” of the six planets, using the following method:

  1. Step One: Calculate angular velocity changes from elliptical orbits
    • According to the second law (area law), the closer a planet is to the Sun, the faster it moves.
    • Kepler calculated the ratio of angular velocities for each planet at “perihelion” (fastest) and “aphelion” (slowest).
  2. Step Two: Convert angular velocity ratios into musical intervals
    • Saturn: perihelion/aphelion velocity ratio ≈ 5:4 (major third).
    • Jupiter: ≈ 6:5 (minor third).
    • Mars: ≈ 3:2 (perfect fifth).
    • Earth: ≈ 16:15 (semitone).
    • Venus: ≈ 25:24 (extremely small semitone).
    • Mercury: ≈ 12:5 (octave + minor third).
  3. Step Three: Draw staff notation. Kepler actually drew “melodic lines” for the six planets in his book:
    • Saturn sings a “deep major third.”
    • Jupiter sings a “solemn minor third.”
    • Mars sings an “impassioned perfect fifth” (greatest variation).
    • Earth sings a “faint semitone” (nearly circular orbit).
    • Venus sings an “almost monotonous tone” (closest to circular).
    • Mercury sings a “leaping octave” (greatest eccentricity).

He wrote: “These melodies are not coincidental but the harmony ‘composed’ by God at creation. Each planet is like a musician in an orchestra, singing according to the part God assigned… I am merely ‘transcribing’ this eternal song” (Johannes Kepler, Harmonices Mundi [Linz, 1619], Book V, ch. 7. English translation: The Harmony of the World, trans. E.J. Aiton, A.M. Duncan, and J.V. Field [Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1997]).

The staff notation from Book V of Kepler's Harmonices Mundi describing the three laws of planetary motion. Here is the music of each planet performed:
The staff notation from Book V of Kepler’s Harmonices Mundi describing the three laws of planetary motion. Here is the music of each planet performed:

Kepler’s theory of celestial music was not a mathematical game but an embodiment of three major theological beliefs:

  1. God is a musician: “God used harmonic principles in creation, just as a composer uses intervals to create a symphony. He did not randomly arrange planetary orbits but designed the entire universe according to ‘the mathematics of music’ (harmonic proportions)” (Johannes Kepler, Harmonices Mundi [Linz, 1619], Book V, ch. 3. English translation: The Harmony of the World, trans. E.J. Aiton, A.M. Duncan, and J.V. Field [Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1997]). This belief originated from Proverbs 8:27–30: “When he established the heavens… when he drew a circle on the face of the deep… Then I was beside him, like a master workman… delighting in him.” Kepler believed that “Wisdom” was God’s “musical principle,” and the universe was “composed” according to this principle.
  2. Musical proportions reflect the nature of the Trinity: Kepler compared the three elements of music (1. melody, 2. harmony, 3. rhythm) to the Trinity (1. Father, 2. Son, 3. Holy Spirit): The Father is the single melody (Unison), as the Sun is the center of the universe; the Son is harmony, as the proportional relationships among planets; the Holy Spirit is rhythm, as the “sweeping speed” of the second law. He wrote: “The trinitarian structure of music is not a human invention but an imprint of God’s nature. The universe must be musical because it is the work of the Triune God” (Johannes Kepler, Harmonices Mundi [Linz, 1619], Book III, ch. 2).
  3. Humans can “hear” cosmic music because they are made in God’s image: Kepler quoted Psalm 19:1–4: “The heavens declare the glory of God… There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard… Their voice goes out through all the earth,” believing that the universe’s “music” is not physical sound waves (which no one can hear) but mathematical harmony, requiring reason to “hear.” “God gave humans reason and musical sense so that we can ‘hear’ His harmony in the elliptical orbits of planets. This is proof of the doctrine of the image: the human mind is connected with God’s mind” (Johannes Kepler, Harmonices Mundi [Linz, 1619], Book V, ch. 9. English translation: The Harmony of the World, trans. E.J. Aiton, A.M. Duncan, and J.V. Field [Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1997]).

Kepler’s staff notation was not a supplement to the three laws but their motivation and explanatory framework:

  1. First Law (elliptical orbits): Planetary orbits are not perfect circles because God’s “composition” is not limited by human notions of “perfection.” Ellipses make velocity variation possible, thus producing melody.
  2. Second Law (area law): The law of velocity variation (equal area/equal time) ensures stable rhythm in the melody. Without the second law, planetary motion would be lawless noise. Modern astronomy confirms that planetary velocity ratios do indeed approximate musical intervals. Astronomers have discovered that during planetary system formation, gravitational resonance produces “interval locking” phenomena, causing orbital ratios to tend toward simple fractions (such as the 5:2 resonance between Jupiter and Saturn).
  3. Third Law (T² ∝ a³): All planets’ periods and orbital sizes follow the same mathematical relationship, which is proof that different parts (planets) belong to the same symphony (solar system).

If Kepler had been purely a “rationalist,” he might have been satisfied with the first two laws. It was the theological belief that “the universe must have unified harmony” that drove him to continue seeking “the unified relationship among all planets” (the third law). When Kepler discovered the third law (May 15, 1618), he wrote in his diary: “I have found it! The ‘General Score’ God used at creation! All parts (planets) are arranged according to the same harmonic principle (T² ∝ a³). Hallelujah!” (Johannes Kepler, personal diary, May 15, 1618, quoted in Max Caspar, Kepler [New York: Dover, 1993], 288).

Science historian Owen Gingerich commented: “Kepler’s theory of celestial music appears to modern scientists as ‘mysticism,’ but it was precisely this ‘mysticism’ (actually theological conviction) that drove him to search for hidden mathematical patterns in the data. Without this conviction, the third law might never have been discovered” (Owen Gingerich, The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler [New York: American Institute of Physics, 1993], 312).

Philosopher of science Gerald Holton pointed out: “Kepler’s case reveals that scientific discovery often stems from ‘non-rational’ (actually super-rational) beliefs—beauty, harmony, unity. These beliefs themselves cannot be proven scientifically, yet they are the driving force of scientific exploration. For Kepler, the source of these beliefs was theology” (Gerald Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988], 69–71).

4. Kepler’s Laws Are Products of the Biblical Worldview

Van Til pointed out: “All knowledge activities presuppose some ‘ultimate interpretive framework.’ Kepler’s success reveals that the biblical doctrine of creation-providence is not only a theological doctrine but also a necessary condition for scientific knowledge. If the universe were not created and faithfully maintained by a rational God, ‘seeking laws’ itself would be a meaningless activity” (Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 118). Kepler himself clearly expressed this epistemological position in his prayer at the end of Harmonices Mundi: “O Lord, if I have been seduced into presumptuousness by the wonderful beauty of Your works, or if I have pursued my own glory among men while furthering work meant for Your glory, gently and mercifully forgive me. Behold, I have here completed the work of glorifying Your handiwork in this book, to the extent my finite mind could comprehend… My whole mind strives to proclaim Your glory” (Johannes Kepler, Harmonices Mundi [Linz, 1619], Book V, ch. 9. English translation: The Harmony of the World, trans. E.J. Aiton, A.M. Duncan, and J.V. Field [Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1997]).

Therefore, the discovery of Kepler’s laws was not accidental fortune but a product of the biblical worldview. In God’s providence, the right person (Kepler with mathematical talent and theological convictions), the right data (Tycho’s precise observations), and the right era (intellectual liberation after the Reformation) together testified that “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1), not only in the beauty of creation but also in the human process of knowing creation.

5. Kepler’s Laws’ Decisive Role for Newton

The world did not immediately celebrate Kepler’s discoveries; on the contrary, Kepler’s laws were long met with indifference because:

  • Lack of physical mechanism: Although Kepler described “how it moves,” he could not explain “why it moves this way.” He himself tried to explain it with magnetism or “the soul of the Sun,” which sounded like pseudoscience.
  • Mathematics too complex: For contemporaries accustomed to circular motion, calculating elliptical orbits was too cumbersome.
  • Galileo’s disregard: Kepler’s correspondent Galileo insisted on the aesthetics of uniform circular motion until his death, completely ignoring Kepler’s elliptical theory and mathematical derivations.
  • Descartes’ disregard: Contemporary René Descartes (1596-1650) attempted to establish a purely mechanical, logical universe model without any mystical elements, refusing to accept Kepler’s “ellipse pieced together from data, driven by mysterious magnetism, with varying speeds.”

One year after Kepler’s death, people successively observed the transit of Mercury and Venus according to predictions from his Rudolphine Tables, gradually believing in ellipses, but few accepted his physics-based view of celestial motion. It was not until 1687, when Newton rigorously derived Kepler’s three laws from the force-based law of universal gravitation in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, that Kepler’s laws were thoroughly accepted.

Kepler’s laws were not merely “helpful” to Newton’s law of universal gravitation but logically indispensable prerequisites. Without Kepler’s laws, there would be no law of universal gravitation. If not for Kepler, Newton might have developed terrestrial mechanics but could not have achieved “the unification of heaven and earth.” And it was precisely this unification that marked the birth of modern science. Newton explicitly acknowledged his derivation from Kepler’s laws in the Principia (Isaac Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, 3rd ed. [London, 1726], Book I, Proposition 1).

  1. The First Law (elliptical orbits) derived that gravity points toward the focus: If planets moved in circular orbits, the center of force could be at the circle’s center or at other positions (such as Ptolemy’s “eccentric circle”). But the mathematical properties of elliptical orbits determine that force must point toward one of the foci. Newton derived from this geometric constraint that the source of gravity must be the Sun (at the focal position). If Kepler had not discovered elliptical orbits, even if Newton had guessed that gravity existed, he could not have determined its direction. In 1684, Halley (Edmond Halley, 1656-1742) visited Newton at Cambridge and asked a question that had puzzled scholars: “If gravity is inversely proportional to the square of distance, what shape is a planet’s orbit?” Newton replied: “It’s an ellipse. I calculated it before but lost the paper. I’ll calculate it again for you.” Halley was greatly impressed and urged Newton to write these theories into a book, helping to publish it at his own expense. In 1687, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published.
  2. The Second Law (area law) derived the radial nature of gravity: “The line connecting a planet and the Sun sweeps equal areas in equal times”—this law, expressed in modern physics, is conservation of angular momentum. This implies crucial information: the force acting on the planet has no tangential component, only a radial component. Newton proved in Book I, Proposition 1 of the Principia: “The area law holds if and only if the force points toward the center” (Isaac Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, 3rd ed. [London, 1726], Book I, Proposition 1). This proof excluded all possibilities of “non-central forces,” narrowing the search range from infinite types to “central forces.”
  3. The Third Law (T² ∝ a³) derived the inverse-square law: Kepler’s third law provided the most crucial clue. Newton proved through mathematical derivation that for circular motion, centripetal force F ∝ v²/r. From T² ∝ a³, one can derive v² ∝ 1/r, therefore F ∝ 1/r². This is the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. If Kepler had not discovered the third law, Newton might have guessed that “gravity is related to distance” but could not have determined whether it was 1/r, 1/r², 1/r³, or some other functional form.

Without Kepler’s laws, universal gravitation could only remain at the “conjecture” stage. Newton wrote in Book III of the Principia, “Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy”: “We must acknowledge that effects of nature that are consistent and constant should be attributed to the same cause. The universality of Kepler’s laws proves that the force governing planetary motion and the force causing apples to fall must be the same force” (Isaac Newton, Principia, Book III, Rules of Reasoning, Rule 2).

Science historian Bernard Cohen analyzed the argumentative structure of the Principia and found: Book I (laws of motion) 20% depends on Kepler’s laws, Book II (resistance of media) 5% depends on Kepler’s laws, Book III (universal gravitation) 80% of propositions use Kepler’s laws as premises. Cohen’s conclusion is that “without Kepler’s three laws, the core content of Newton’s Principia—celestial mechanics—could not have been established at all” (I. Bernard Cohen, The Newtonian Revolution [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980], 78–80).