PRESS-ANCIENT ORIGINS: Radical new documentary claims Copernicus and four centuries of science is wrong.

Screen Shot 2014-08-05 at 4.02.24 PM


A new documentary called The Principle, which is due to be launched on 10th October, is set to take on more than four centuries of established belief in the Copernican Principle by presenting shocking new scientific evidence that suggests the Earth holds a special place within the cosmos. The film has already resulted in an absolute media frenzy, smear campaign, and storm of controversy as furious scientists vehemently defend their position – and that’s before they have even seen the evidence. Could we be on the edge of a radical new understanding of our universe and our place within it? Rick Delano, Writer and Producer of The Principle believes we are. While most of us today assume that our brilliant scientific minds, space exploration programs, and high-tech telescopes and equipment have long since proven that the Earth orbits the sun, Mr Delano explains that no experimental evidence has ever been obtained that unequivocally proves this to be true. As historian Lincoln Barnett states in The Universe and Dr. Einstein, “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” Hence, Mr Delano states that the Copernican Principle is not a scientific fact, but rather a metaphysical assumption supported by profoundly convincing ideas and theories. His film, The Principle, is the first documentary ever to directly examine the scientific basis of the Copernican Principle by bringing together top scientific experts in a commentary, which he says, will leave us questioning our very place within the cosmos.



4 Responses

  1. Drider says:

    Very good post brother! I felt that it flewod especially well and if I didn’t know you, I might think you to be one of those bloggers that everybody reads and hopefully for their sake that will one day be true. As far as the meat and potatoes of this post, very good points and you laid out the root of the problem clearly by expressing that the two realms do not have the ability to contradict each other. I feel like this is at the very heart of issues surrounding how we view scriptural authority which you know is something that our generation, and myself in particular, really wrestle with. The loudest voice in the evangelical church today is that of the fundamentalist, not because they have something new to say but because they are threatened by ideas that run contrary to their dogmatic set of core values and beliefs. It seems that the more we express a willingness to engage scripture and put all claims to the test in order to see the truth rise to the top, the more those who are close-minded raise their voices and shout heretic in a sort of witch hunt manner that doesn’t seek to redeem or restore those they oppose (in this case us) back to the Body.To you and I the things you have expressed just make sense, that truth about God can be revealed through a number of avenues. Obviously the way we engage scripture goes back to the cultural linguistic model that Green taught us and through that lens we can understand that scripture presents truths about God, only those truths were not understood the same way (and perhaps not as clearly due to their lack of scientific understanding). The question I really have for fundamentalists (and I should clarify that I don’t hate them) is as to how they might handle the acceptance of the reality that there are plenty of passages of scripture that can easily be refuted if we view them simply as propositional statements. Just because the sun doesn’t revolved around the earth, does it take away from who God is? If the earth isn’t only a few thousand years old as geology seems to suggest, does it take away from what Christ did for us? If I must question the scientific or moral integrity of some passages of scripture, must I be skeptical of them all? The sad reality is that for many this is the case.I liked the demonstration you made to distinguish between theological claims and scientific claims and I thought it was interesting that I could easily blend the two statements without any conflict. The Bible gives us the what but science is helping to explain some of the how. Now granted there are things we’ll never be able to scientifically explain or bring any more understanding to, particularly in understanding the death and resurrection, but in a lot of cases I think our scientific understanding does a good job helping us filter, and grow to appreciate the Bible even more.“God created the world out of love and created humanity on purpose [through]the collision of subatomic particles hundreds of billions of years ago, and all of life came to existence from one single-celled organism and billions of years of evolution for a purpose Thanks for writing,Barnes

  2. Frank Horn says:

    I’ve been trying to buy your advertised DVD with an American Express gift card, but that card was rejected. I do not have a regular credit or debit card. Your site does not give a phone number of physical address.

    I’ve been watching for this movie at the local theater, which said they would screen it when it became available. A recent enquiry could not be answered.

    What gives?

Leave a Reply