all Jastrow +quot;Quote+quot; was a Wolff lie, #1 of I read the book. Here's what Bill Fun
Jastrow "Quote" was a Wolff lie, #1 of
I read the book. Here's what Bill Fundy Liar Wolff said:
"God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow, 1978, pp. 11, 14.
"It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us
do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become
irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it
over with meaningless phrases." - Jastrow
Bill got the page numbers wrong, which tells us he doesn't have the
book but was just quoting his ICR propaganda. The book only had one
printing (W.W., 1978) and didn't go paper-back.
Jastrow is a Creationists. His book is filled with biblical quotes:
the "god" he professes, and only explores in his book, is the Old
Testiment one--- why he assumed it was that god and not some other
god is not explained.
The book is very curious indeed. Every page has bold, unsupported
assertions, outright deceptions, and self-serving opinions stated
as fact. On page three of the book he asserts that science is "kind
of like a religion," and explains that this is so because science
resists changing to a new and better theory until the new theory
explains observations better. I.e. his specific example: the Steady
State up to 1967+- was the best theory that was available at the
time, though the Big Bang was also popular. Jastrow denegrates the
scientific community for not immediately accepting the Big Bang
Theory as soon as it gained a little bit more evidence than Steady
State, but instead the said community waited until many more facts
What Jastrow fails to understand, it seems, is that was he explains
is how the scientific method is =SUPPOSED= to work. No matter that a
new theory is LATER, look at with HINDSIGHT, better than any current
theory--- Jastrow expects the scientific community to somehow know,
through magic it seems, that a new theory will end up being better
than current theory. Instead, scientists varified that the new theory
did in fact explain what is observed better than the previous theory.
Jastrow would have scientists immediately accept all new theories that
are presented, valid or not, just in case they later prove valid.
Jastrow then proceeds to make even more bold, occultic assertions:
"Now we[sic] see how the astronomical evidence leads to a
biblical view of the origin of the world." pg 14
"We" don't, and it doesn't. He discussed the origin of the universe
and not the origin of the world. The "biblical view" is DRASTICALLY
different than what the current theory of the origin of the world.
"The details differ, but the essential elements in the
astronomical and biblical accounts in Genesis are the same:
the chain of events leading up to man[sic] commenced
suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a
flash of light and energy." pg 14
Why didn't he said "leading up to A.I.D.S" instead of "man?" The way
he makes his assertion leads one to believe that humans are somehow
the target or desired result for this "flash of light and energy."
If humans are all wiped out by A.I.D.S., doesn't that mean the desired
result was a particular virus, not humans? If not being outright
dishonest, he is at least being misleading.
"Some scientists are unhappy with the idea that the world
began in this way." pg 14
Which scientists? -WHY- are they unhappy? The Big Bang was a universal
creation event, not the world.
"Until recenty [1965 - 1970] many of my colleagues preferred
the Steady State theory, which holds that the Universe[sic] had
no beginning and is eternal." pg 14
Scientists "prefer" that which holds the best explanation for the
observed. Up to that time the Steady State was the best explanation.
As soon as evidence for Big Bang was collected, scientists "preferred"
the Big Bang. Jastrow has us believe that this is a bad thing!
"But the latest evidence makes it almost certain that the Big
Bang really did occur many millions of years ago." pg 14
Billions, not millions. The MORE latest COBE evidence made the Big
Bang theory as close to certainty as any theory can be.
"In 1965 Arno Penzias and obert Wilson of the Bell
Laboratories discovered that the earth is bathed in a faint
glow of radiation comming from every direction in the heavens.
The measurements showed that the earth itself could not be the
origin of this radiation, nor could the radiation come from
the direction of the moon, the sun, or any other particular
object in the sky. The entire Universe[sic] seemed to be the
The two physicists were puzzled by their discovery. They
were not thinking about the origin of the Universe[sic[, and
they did not realize that they had stumbled upon the answer
to one of the cosmic mysteries. Scientists who believed[sic]
Jastrow "Quote" was a Wolff lie, #2 of
in the theory of the Big Bang had long asserted that the
Universe[sic] must have resembled a white-hot firball in the
very moments after the Big Bang occured. Gradually, as the
Universe[sic] expanded and cooled, the fireball would have
become less brilliant, but its radiation would have never
dissappeared entirely. It was the diffuse glow of this ancient
radiation, dating back to the birth of the Universe[sic], that
Penzias and Wilson apparently discovered. [Footnote: Ralph
Alpher and Robert Herman predicted the fireball radiation
in 1948 but no one paid attention to their prediction. They
were ahead of their time."] pg 14 and 15
Now Jastrow laments that two scientists were ignored because they
made a prediction that was later varified. Science waits for
evidence before accepting a theory as valid. Jastrow should lament
over those who accepted the prediction as valid before the evidence
"No explanation other than the Big Bang has been found
for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced
almost the last doubting Thomas [except the Creationist Fred
Hoyle-- drice], is that the radiation discovered by Penzias
and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected
for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters
of the Steady State theory have tried desperately to find an
alternative explanation, but they have failed. At the present
time, the Big Bang theory has no competitors." pg 15 and 16.
I only know of one human being on the planet that still supports the
Steady State theory--- Hoyle in the "Scopes Trial." [Hoyle, Fred, Sir,
1981, Evolution from space : a theory of cosmic creationism, New York:
Simon and Schuster, 176 p.]
"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the
Universe[sic] had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously
upset." pg 16
First off, the Big Bang theory has NOT been proven. It will -NEVER-
be proven. It is impossible to prove a theory. The Big Bang theory
is so very likely probable that it reaches certitude, but it is not
proven to be valid.
Secondly, NO WHERE in Jastrow's book does he mention which astronomers
are "upset" about the Big Bang being valid, nor does he mention -WHY-
said mysterious astronomers are upset.
"Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the
response of the scientific mind--- supposedly a very objective
mind--- when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a
conflict with the articles of faith[sic] in our profession."
Science has no article of faith, other than that the universe does not
set out to fool us. Jastrow doesn't mention any examples, nor does he
give us a clue as to what he is talking about.
The Steady State theory was the best one available at the time. When
better data was collected, science accepted it almost 100%. Science
waits on better data before accepting -ANY- new theory. One would
expect Jastrow to understand that this is a Good Thing(tm), and the
-BEST- method science can, and did, adopt. If I say that Luna is made
calcium carbide, scientists are not going to rush to accept this new
theory until I provide evidence--- is Jastrow saying they should?
"It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us
do when our beliefs[sic] are in conflict with the evidence."
That is why scientists keep their beliefs to themselves, or should,
when they are wearing their "scientist hat." Most do. Most also know
that "argument by authority" is false: just because a scientist say
something is true, that does not mean said something is true. Yet
this is exactly what Jastrow is employing--- argument by authority.
Jastro said it, you'd better believe it, that had damn well better
"We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist,
or we paper it over with meaningless phrases." pg 16
Yet again he failed to explain what he means, nor does he provide any
examples. We have his word on it. Who becomes irritated? Why? In what
way is this irritation manifest? How does he know that "we" become
More importantly, why is Jastrow speaking for the ENTIRE scientific
community? Shouldn't he be speaking for himself alone? Why did he
state his opinion as fact, which it is not?
The rest of the book is very bad Creationism. It attempts to show
that some god (one in particular for some reason, though there are
tens of thousands to choose from) was responsible for the universe
being here. He resorts to "because I say so," and that's the best
he can do.
The book is simple, junior-highschool level reading, probably with a
target of simple-minded Creationists in mind when he wrote it. It was
not worth the quarter dollar I paid for it.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank