Calvin has been viewed in many ways down through the ages as an advocate of freedom and as a despotic tyrant; as one who proclaimed capitalism and as one who was chained to medieval feudal society; and as one who opened up edu­cation in every area of life and as one who could see no further than his blinkered biblical spectacles allowed him to see.

As far as science is concerned, Calvin lived at the time of the new astronomy, when the old Ptolemaic and Aristotelian geocentricism was giving way to Copernicus' heliocentrism. Copernicus lived from 1473 to 1543, but his great work, De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium, only appeared just before his death, in 1543, when Calvin was aged 34. Copernicanism may prove an inter­esting introduction to Calvin's wider view of science and Scripture, and espe­cially Genesis.

There has been a particularly intense debate, albeit rather light on details, over Calvin's attitude to Copernicus. Martin Luther's response to Copernicus is fairly well known. He fumed:

This fel­low ... wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder, I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth. Josh. 10:12-14

It has been often assumed that Calvin's attitude was similar, and a number of hostile authorities — notably Andrew Dickson White and Bertrand Russell — claim, without citation, that Calvin quoted the text "The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved" (Psalm 93:1), and concluded: "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" Edward Rosen was unable to trace the source of Calvin's supposed comment, and concluded that "never having heard of him, Calvin had no atti­tude toward Copernicus".

Joseph Ratner vigorously argues that Calvin must have heard of Copernicus. Apart from other considerations, Georg Joachim von Lauchen — better known to history as Rheticus (1514-1574) — was both a disciple of Copernicus and some kind of friend to Melanchthon. G. A. Gerrish thus concludes:

It is hardly nec­essary to suppose that Calvin had never heard of Copernicus. What is plain, however, is that, if he knew of Copernicus, he felt no compelling need to quarrel with him.

In 2007 Davis Young was maintaining a not dissimilar view: Calvin probably did know of the Copernican hypothesis but was reluctant to become entangled in debates over science.

In 1971 Richard Stauffer took the  debate to another level by drawing attention to a sermon that Calvin preached, probably in 1556, on 1 Corinthians 10:19-24. Here Calvin attacked those who pervert the order of nature, adding that "We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns." No other similar condemnations have turned up, and in Calvin's sermons on Genesis there are no references to either Copernicus or the Copernican system.

Christopher Kaiser has argued that the sermon on 1 Corinthians 10:19-24 was not aimed at Copernicus, but Sebastian Castellio who was drawing on a passage in Cicero's Academica. The con­text in Paul's epistle has to do with the misuse of Christian liberty rather than the issue of cosmology. Calvin was, in Kaiser's view, arguing against Castellio's contention in favour of religious tolera­tion. Hence, says Kaiser, "we are back to the situation Edward Rosen described in 1960: we have no clear evidence that Calvin ever commented on or even knew of the work of Copernicus".

In dealing with the sun standing still in Joshua's day, Calvin says almost noth­ing that indicates any interaction with Copernican theory. He comments mildly:

The question how the sun stood in Gibeon, is no less unseasonably raised by some than unskillfully explained by others ... In short, the sun, which was already declining to the west, is kept from setting.

In the light of current knowledge, the only reasonable conclu­sion seems to be that, whether he was aware of it or not, Calvin by and large ignored Copernican astronomy. His approach to Scripture did not predeter­mine him to oppose it, although, if pressed, he probably would have regarded it as unlikely.

In his commentary on Psalm 136:7 ("[God] made the great lights"), Calvin wrote:

The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy; and in proposing instruction meant to be common to the simplest and most uneducated persons, he made use by Moses and the other Prophets of popular language, that none might shelter himself under the pretext of obscurity.

Calvin, however, was not referring there to the Ptolemaic or the Copernican view of astronomy but to Genesis 1 which calls the sun and the moon the two great lights. Calvin says:

It is true, that the other planets are larger than the moon, but it is stated as second in order on account of its visible effects.

Calvin acknowledged that Saturn is larger than the moon, despite the fact that Genesis 1:16 calls the moon "the lesser light", second to the sun, "the greater light". However, Calvin went on to point out that to human sight it appears differently, and because Moses was ordained "a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfil his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction".

In his sermons on Genesis, Calvin declared:

So Moses refused to play the astrologer (i.e. astronomer), not that he was ignorant about that, but he con­formed to men's ignorance and debility so that, within our limitations, we might understand that we need to be instructed in the fear of God and in the trustworthiness of his goodness, and motivated to give him the praise he is due.

Referring to Calvin's commentary on Genesis, Jack Rogers considers that Calvin was conceding that there was sci­entific error in the writings of Moses, and adds that Calvin himself was indif­ferent to it. This misses Calvin's point, for there is none of the dualism in Calvin's thought that one finds in many post-Kantian thinkers. Calvin would never have agreed with Auguste Sabatier, the French Protestant theologian, who declared concerning science and piety: "There cannot be conflict between the two orders, because they move on differ­ent planes and never meet." Rather, Moses was concerned with things as they appear to the naked eye, while the astronomer is concerned with things as they appear through the telescope.

Calvin held to the view that God spoke of scientific matters in Scripture as they are observable to us. With regard to the expanse of water above the heavens (Gen. 1:6), Calvin declared that "nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recon­dite arts, let him go elsewhere". Calvin was not saying that the Bible was spiritu­ally correct while being scientifically inaccurate. To cite another, and common, example, the sun rises and the sun sets (Eccles. 1:5). This, alas, is not referred to in Calvin's Institutes, but even in our day of universal Copernicanism, weather reports remain less than literalistic, and it is still said that the sun rises and sets.

It is a statement which must be approached as directed to our senses, not as literal science.

In its rightful sphere, science was something commendable, and Calvin wrote:

There are innumerable evidences both in heaven and on earth that declare His wonderful wisdom; not only those more recondite matters for the closer observation of which astronomy, medicine, and all natural science are intended, but also those which thrust themselves upon the sight of even the most untutored and ignorant persons, so that they cannot open their eyes with­out being compelled to witness them ... To be sure, there is need of art and of more exacting toil in order to investigate the motion of the stars, to determine their assigned stations, to measure their intervals, to note their properties.

The created order, to Calvin, was indeed "the theatre of God's glory", and worthy of all admiration, contemplation, and study. That, however, was not his primary task.

It is worth focusing now more specif­ically on Calvin's approach to Genesis 1­-11. Calvin could be objectivity personi­fied in dealing with Scripture. For example, he never pressed the point that the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, which is plural, was a clear pointer to the doctrine of the Trinity. In Genesis 18:1-15, Calvin was similarly reluctant to find any picture of the Trinity. He was wary of Christians who tried to prove too much from Scripture. If nothing else, Calvin was a careful exegete of Scripture — per­haps too cautious at times.

Whereas some commentators can find miracles everywhere, Calvin was rather hesitant. God set the rainbow in the cloud as a sign of His covenant with Noah. Calvin regarded as frivolous the view that this was teaching that rainbows did not exist before the Flood. He considered that God simply took something that was common and gave it a new purpose. He was also willing to confess when he was not sure about a matter. In Genesis 9:25 God's curse falls on Canaan, not all the descendants of Ham. Why? We do not know, and Calvin him­self was prepared to leave this as a profound abyss into which we could not, and should not, descend. Armed with such a careful mind, Calvin, with regard to biblical passages that impinged on sci­ence, tended to adopt a literal view unless there was good reason not to.

Hence he believed that the earth was young, not old. In dealing with the doc­trine of predestination, Calvin replied to "profane men": "they will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe, for they ask why God's power was idle and asleep for so long."

Contrary to Alister McGrath's view that Calvin considered that the six days of creation were not to be taken as literally true, Calvin in fact explained them in a literal sense. Pointing to Genesis 1:5, he declared:

Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God Himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating His works to the capacity of men.

God took six days not because He needed the time, but "that He might engage us in the consideration of His works".

Calvin rarely referred to other writers in his works, but he clearly had Augustine of Hippo in mind here. Augustine seems to have been bewil­dered why God took so long to create the world. The great African father com­mented: "What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them." He thought that God probably created the world in an instant. Indeed, Augustine told his readers:

And if you are not yet able to grasp this, leave the contemplation of it to those who have the capacity, while you yourself go on making progress by walking more slowly with scripture at your side, where she does not desert your weakness but matches her steps to yours in motherly fashion.

Without naming Augustine, Calvin was replying to him.

To Calvin, Adam was a true historical figure, and can be distinguished from others in that "others had sprung from previous stock, and had been born of parents". Accordingly the Fall was a real event in time and space. Calvin does not appear to leave room for physical death before Adam's sin:

Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.

Finally, the Flood was not some local disaster for "the whole world was immersed in the waters". "When God exterminated all the world's creatures, we are informed again that He cannot punish us beyond measure, horrible as that punishment may be."

To Calvin, scientific-sounding state­ments in Scripture are recorded from the viewpoint of how the writer observed the phenomena, not how a scientific text book might detail the same events. Such an approach would allow him a certain amount of flexibility in dealing with awkward texts. However, he did not believe in creating difficulties when none existed, and favoured an interpre­tation of Scripture that was straightfor­ward, which, being translated, usually means "literal".