all Jastrow +quot;Quote+quot; was a Wolff lie, #1 of I read the book. Here's what Bill Fun

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

all 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 were aquired. 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 source. 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] all 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 was in. "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." pg 16 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." pg 16 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 settle it. "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 irritated? 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