But not the most important one. The most important objection is that science and cosmology was not the purpose of the text. It is frankly like complaining that the Bible doesn’t explain the rules of chess, how to run a democratic government, or how to fix a computer.
Nor is there a clear reference to the shape of the Earth, just those describing it like a table with 4 corners. And some people think there are vague references to evolution. Certainly there are references to a great deal more people on the Earth than Adam and Eve.
That is too bad since as a physicist, I think Occam’s Razor is mostly baloney. The problem is this…
- Two explanations are almost never completely equal, and fact is that scientists go with the explanation which is accurate (matching the measurable data) no matter how complicated it is. Describing quantum field theory as simple is downright laughable.
- When two explanations ARE equal then it generally recognized that we require the freedom and flexibility to look at things in either way – and the different ways or frames of reference are useful for different calculations.
So which is it in the case of the Ptolemaic (geocentric) versus Copernican (heliocentric) view of the universe? Both. The biggest problem with the geocentric view is that is will never be as accurate. That is why you keep having to add corrections (epicycles). Assuming you do make all the corrections to the geocentric view required for accuracy to the required precision, then the geocentric view is just the one that directly describes the motion of the planets in the sky. And there is nothing innately more accurate about the heliocentric view when you consider the velocity of the sun around the galaxy and the velocity of the galaxy itself in the local cluster.