By: David Rice To: Larry Meyering Re: +quot;Uncomfortable+quot; [large cuts, by dr, occure

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

Skeptic Tank!

By: David Rice To: Larry Meyering Re: "Uncomfortable" [large cuts, by dr, occured here] >JC> This suggests a few things from a metaphysical >JC> standpoint. Which is, of course, bullshit. Jim is arguing that anything we do not currenty understand must be explained by magic. I most emphatically disagree. >JC> First, there was a point at which the universe as we >JC> know it did have a beginning. That fact alone makes more >JC> than a few scientists uncomfortable. Which is, of course, bullshit. I know of only ONE scientist that was made uncomfortable by the evidence for the Big Bang theory: the Creationist Fredrick Hoyle, who only reciently abandoned Steady State. >JC> Second, we can show evidence of a time when the known >JC> laws of science do not apply and in fact, do not even >JC> exist. That's "did not exist," not "do not exist." Jim is having LSD flashbacks. >JC> This shows that there are unknowns in science that we >JC> cannot begin to least not yet. "Therefore," Jim asserts, "the gods did it." Sheeeish. >JC> Once we accept the fact that a time existed when all the >JC> rules were off....then many things become possible. I guess that means Santa Claus really does exist, and that pigs can fly. LM> I'm not aware of any scientists that are "uncomfortable" LM> with the beginning of the universe - it has been implicit LM> since Hobble found that the universe is expanding. The myth that the Big Bang made "scientists 'uncomfortable'" has its genesis by Robert Jastro. From "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow, 1978. "Some scientists are unhappy with the idea that the world began in this way." pg 14 Which scientists? -WHY- are they unhappy? [Also the Big Bang was a universe creation event, not the world. Earth came much latter.] "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 MOST latest COBE evidence made the Big Bang theory as close to certainty as any theory can be. "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." p16 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? 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. ... "Comparing apples and vacuum again, are we, Bob??" -- Sean McCullough *


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank