He argued that the geocentric language of the Bible was intended only to be a phenomenonalistic description, that it was not intended to be understood as communicating astronomical facts regarding the movement of the planets.
Against this, the Catholic Church argued that if such language in Scripture was not taken literally it would be equivalent to saying that Scripture was both defective and deceitful - defective for not communicating astronomical truths, and deceitful for describing things as they appear to be, rather than as they are. Buzzard is invited to comment on whether he agrees with the argument of Galileo, or the argument of the Church.
We will now examine the argument of accommodation. Critical to Buzzard's objection to the argument of accommodation is his question of whether or not Christ is ever recorded as accommodating any other 'superstition' without correcting it:
'The important question is whether there is any other example of Jesus allowing superstition to pass uncorrected.'