Scientists covet

[SBG]

This forum is about origins which covers Evolution, Big Bang, and Abiogenesis.

So far I have read that creation - God creating in six days - is not science but bologna. Whether this is due to the fact the God is inside the equation or the fact that there is no funding for the research that leads one to this conclusion is a matter of opinion.

I state God in the first part of the sentence because some scientists have stated in the past that they cannot consider a theory that includes God. Of course this doesn't make up all scientists, nor does it represent science as a whole, even if a good amount are not believers in God.

I state that creationism receives no funding from the government unlike its rival, evolution. Many will try and argue saying it is because creationism isn't science. Well that is a matter of opinion.

Why such a disdain for creationism? If it really is bad science, why not allow it to be studied throughly, with funding and peer review, so that it can be shown to be false? What are the scientists afraid of that they will not allow a differing view point to enter their own publications? If evolution is as solid as many claim - a fact rather - than a differing view point should pose no threat whatsoever. In reality, even if it is bad science (creationism) it is still discussing science. And wouldn't a competing theory - even if a bad one - help strengthen the opposition? That is unless scientist realize evolution isn't as sound as they want everyone to believe.

Much like the liar who has fabricated a story, he will stop at nothing to prepetuate his story. When it is under attack, he will add to the story, change it so it cannot be found to be false.

Listen for a moment before you head off to write out your ad hominem attacks on my last paragraph. I am not trying to call evolution a lie or a fabricated story. What I am saying is that it looks the part of a liar because it will not allow competing theories to rival it.

Before you jump on me for that last sentence, I am sure many have heard of Fred Holye and Eric Lerner. Both have openly said the Big Bang Theory is wrong. (Lerner is president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, author of a recent complaint published in the prestigious magazine, New Scientist, and co-signed by thirty-three other scientists from ten countries) Read what Lerner says about the Big Bang Theory:

"BIG BANG theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities—things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. . . . the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation." ("Bucking the Big Bang," New Scientist (May 22, 2004), p. 20)

The Plasma Theory and the Steady-State theory have been put forth by Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven (Plasma Theory) and Sir Fred Holye (Steady-State Theory).

Neither of these two competing theories against the Big Bang receive funding. These scientists are not discussing God or anything about Him. They have realized that the Big Bang Theory is a joke and have come up with better theories. Yet no funding, and why might that be?

Lerner contends that the bias of peer-review committees and the resultant lack of funding for these alternative theories is the main reason for the insistence of cosmologists that the Big Bang continue as cosmologic orthodoxy, despite its lack of evidence. He says that,

". . . in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model.

. . . Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang." ("Bucking the Big Bang," New Scientist (May 22, 2004))

Notice what Lerner says, funding comes only from a few sources. Also notice Lerner says doubt and dissent are not tolerated. Even a non-Christian cannot bring a theory against the Big Bang and get funding and peer reviews. Why would evolution be any different? The same people who fund the Big Bang Theory fund evolution and well as the peer reviews.

Fred Hoyle and his associates have had the same problem. When they published in 1999 a book entitled, A Different Approach to Cosmology, the science reviewer for the Sunday London Telegraph, acknowledged that Hoyle was "Britain's greatest living astrophysicist, and the Big Bang theory's greatest adversary." Yet he had to recognize another fact also.

"I don't expect the vast majority of astronomers to pay the slightest attention to Hoyle and his colleagues: frankly, there are too many careers riding on the Big Bang being right." (Robert Matthews: "Sir Fred Returns to Give Big Bang Another Kicking." Sunday Telegraph (February 13, 2000))

Too many careers riding on the Big Bang Theory...... The same can be said for evolution. If evolution were proven to be false, many careers would be damaged, for scientists have spent their whole lives working and perpetuating the idea. It really isn't that much different than politics.

What I fond interesting is that Hoyle recognizes the law of entropy, which would indicate the whole universe—even the very structure of matter—to be decaying. Sounds a bit like when Paul said the earth is groaning because of sin to me.

Anyways, I found this all very interesting and strangely similiar to politics. That when money and careers are at stake, nothing will be allowed to comprise their theory.

And I will leave this with some quotes from Darwin and some current scientists:

DARWIN ON THE FOSSIL RECORD:
"If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed. Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains." Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, p. 179 1st ed.

MODERN SCIENCE ON THE FOSSIL RECORD:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants. Instead, species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationish argument that each species was created by God. Mark Czarnecki, McLean's January 19, 1981 p. 56

DARWIN ON THE FORMATION OF ONE COMPLEX ORGAN:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications my theory absolutely would break down. Charles Darwin. Origin of Species, p.189 1st ed.

MODERN SCIENCE ON THE FORMATION OF ONE PROTEIN:
"In essence, the probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe." [Cytochrome-C is a protein necessary for life] Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim, Inheritance and Evolution, Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 61


Why, if species have decended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? But as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, p. 172 1st ed.


"...as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life could not have arisen by chance." Astronomer Fred Hoyle, Univ. College Cardiff, UK, from his book The Intelligent Universe, as quoted in Created Evolution by Mick James, 1992, Fidonet Science Echo

 

[Vance]

SBG, welcome to the forum. The OP in the other thread came across as derogatory and sarcastic, so many responded in kind. I apologize if it came across harsh. I would suggest you read this forum for a while, as well as the Creation and Evoluiton forum and you will see that all of the points you have made have been answered dozens of times before.

 

[SBG]

Fantastic! Can you point me to the thread that talks about why Hoyle cannot get funding for his theory that conflicts with the Big Bang Theory? I assume you have actual peer reviewers posting there stating why they won't review his theory, as well as the ones who do do the funding for such things stating why they won't fund him.

 

[Vance]

Why would there be a peer review of a decision not to fund particular research? That is a decision for each funding source to make. It is scientific presentations themselves that get peer reviewed. If you have not visited the Creation and Evolution forum, I would highly recommend it to you. It has a lot more traffic, has a good number of scientists, and could provide you with more detailed information about how this process works.

 

[SBG]

You misunderstood Vance. I did not mean a peer revision on why there is no funding. What I meant was, is there a thread that has posts, by those who do peer revision, saying why they refuse to review Hoyle's theory. Also is there a post that states, by one of the few funding organizations, why they will not fund Hoyle?

Secondly, are you suggesting Eric Lerner is incorrect in his statements, and that Hoyle and Alfven have both received funding as well as peer revision for their theories? If so, prove it with references.

I find it rather amusing, you as a lawyer not scientist, try to act as if you know more than Lerner, who is a rather respected scientist. I think you are attempting to not discuss the issue, by saying 'there are other threads' or 'go learn about peer reviews.' What I have given you is a well respected scientist saying competing theories with the Big Bang will not get reviewed nor funded because they are competing.

This demonstrates what the scientific community is like, and how it does treat competing theories that go against very popular and accepted theories.

I see you consistenly, Vance, asking people to acknowledge your questions. And I see you Vance, consistently telling other people, when directing questions at you or your stem of beliefs, to go look elsewhere. You demand answers and when answers are demanded you point the finger elsewhere. Excellent, do as I say not as I do approach.

Consistency seems rather difficult to get. Praise God that He is always consistent, otherswise He just might say He has had enough with all of us.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The first person to suggest the idea of a "Big Bang" like theory of the origin of the universe was a priest. I believe that Big Bang Theory is one of the best scientific supporting theories for ex-nihilo creation that involves a supernatural being.

Wikipedia - Big Bang
...
History of the Theory

In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"...

The primary reason why Steady-State Theory no longer receives much funding is because it did receive a lot of funding in the 50s and 60s but has fallen into the realm of science which no longer has much value because of problems in the theory and ultimately the discovery of cosmic background radiation in 1965 which strongly supports the Big Bang Theory.

Wikipedia - Steady state theory

The steady state theory is a model developed in 1949 by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold and others as an alternative to the Big Bang theory. Although the model had a large number of supporters among cosmologists in the 1950's and 1960's, the number of supporters decreased markedly in the late 1960's and today it is considered a non-standard cosmology.

....
Problems with the steady-state theory began to emerge in the late 1960s, when observations apparently supported the idea that the universe was in fact changing: quasars and radio galaxies were found only at large distances (i.e., redshift, and thus, because of the finiteness of the speed of light, in the past) not in closer galaxies. Halton Arp, also since the 1960s, has been taking a different view of the data, claiming that evidence can also point to quasars existing as close as the local Virgo cluster.

For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the big bang theory. Within the steady state theory this background radiation is the result of light from ancient stars which has been scattered by galactic dust. However, this explanation has been unconvincing to most cosmologists as the cosmic microwave background is very smooth, making it difficult to explain how it arose from point sources, and the microwave background shows no evidence of features such as polarization which are normally associated with scattering.

Plasma cosmology received a lot of attention in the mid-90s and there seems to have been significant research money in the field then and there still is some research being done on this theory.

Wikipedia - Plasma cosmology
...
In the mid-1990s, interest in plasma cosmologies was piqued by a limited few in the standard (Big Bang) cosmological community, mostly as a "fallback" theory, in case COBE failed to discover variations in the CMB (cosmic microwave background) or in case primordial helium abundances turned out to be unexplainable by standard cosmologies. This interest rapidly waned as more precise measurements, such as those from COBE, appeared to support standard cosmologies in the late 1990's.
...

Future Work
There is much work to be done in this field. Lerner's model of quasar and galaxy formation can be compared with Halton Arp's observations of quasars and AGN. The non-linear redshift phenomena can also be compared with Arp's data and Peratt's data.

Within plasma cosmology, there have been no published papers which make predictions on the primordial helium abundance (although this subject is addressed in Lerner's book,) or which calculate correlation functions.

 

[Vance]

No, I don't doubt at all what Lerner says, it may well be true. But your post itself admits that it is not a matter of discrimination based on religious position, but based on the nature of the theory itself. I think the "problem" is hugely over-stated, though. Everybody who has a theory thinks it is worthy of the limited funding dollars, whether it be crop circles or quantam physics. Someone has to decide where that funding will do the most good and provide the most productive results.

What I have noticed about the scientific community is that if someone has a viable idea, and presents it effectively, it will get listened to. That is why we have so many huge developments in science all the time, even when those developments buck the system. How could we have such revolutionary developments and changes if the community was not open to them?

Sounds like sour grapes from the holders of a theory that is simply not convincing anyone.

And, it is exactly because I am NOT a scientist that I suggested posting it over in the C&E forum, where the scientists reside.

 

[Remus]

Before you jump on me for that last sentence, I am sure many have heard of Fred Holye and Eric Lerner. Both have openly said the Big Bang Theory is wrong. (Lerner is president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, author of a recent complaint published in the prestigious magazine, New Scientist, and co-signed by thirty-three other scientists from ten countries) Read what Lerner says about the Big Bang Theory:

They put it online if anyone is interested. They have a few more signers since it's been online.
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

 

[Vance]

What always boggles my mind, though, is that the Big Bang fits in perfectly with Creationism. In fact, when it was first presented (by a Christian scientist), it was initially rejected by the more militantly atheistic scientists as being too "supernatural" and simply an attempt to establish a "God-like" origin of the universe. Then, as it was examined and studied and became so persuasive that the secular scientists jumped on the band-wagon, Creationists then began to back away from it and then even argue against it. Almost as if they believed that if secular scientists accepted it, it MUST be wrong.

 

[gluadys]

Why such a disdain for creationism? If it really is bad science, why not allow it to be studied throughly, with funding and peer review, so that it can be shown to be false?

Because that has already been done over 100 years ago.

 

[SBG]

And who claims this has been done, gluadys?

 

[gluadys]

And who claims this has been done, gluadys?

James Hutton, Georges Cuvier, Louis Agassiz, Charles Lyall, Adam Sedgwick, Asa Gray, inter alia.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You misunderstood Vance. I did not mean a peer revision on why there is no funding. What I meant was, is there a thread that has posts, by those who do peer revision, saying why they refuse to review Hoyle's theory. Also is there a post that states, by one of the few funding organizations, why they will not fund Hoyle?

Probably because he's dead.

http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/hoyle.html

 

[The Lady Kate]

Probably because he's dead.

http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/hoyle.html

Well, if you're going to get technical...

 

[SBG]

Yes, my fault for not using past tense.

So tell me is Intelligent Design science?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yes, my fault for not using past tense.

So tell me is Intelligent Design science?

Does it make any testable claims or predictions?

 

[SBG]

You tell me, do you accept it as part of science.

 

[Vance]

You tell me, do you accept it as part of science.

That would depend on the answer to her question (to which she may already have an answer, of course, and thus have an opinion).

 

[SBG]

That would depend on the answer to her question (to which she may already have an answer, of course, and thus have an opinion).

Do you think we could get a straight answer from someone with the evolution belief on this subject? I am looking for those who participate here to answer this. Is intelligent design considered part of science or not?

It is rather difficult to get any theistic evolutionist to commit to just one answer.

 

[Vance]

But it looks as if you are being just as determined not to answer her question.

Personally, I think that ID theory is not science, but if any can show that it does, indeed, make testable claims and predictions, then I would happily reconsider.

Here are my thoughts on ID:

I have read some of the intelligent design materials and it seems to be saying that what we have now is uniquely and amazingly well-suited to fit, well, the way things are now. "If X was even very slightly different, we would not be able to live on this planet", etc, etc. This makes a very large logical fallacy: that this end product was a necessity.

They start with the current state of things as if this state of things was the ultimate goal, and then work backwards to show that everything fits what we now have perfectly, and the ODDS of things turning out this way is so tremendously low, that it MUST have come about by design. The whole watchmaker argument.

Even though I am a Christian and believe that God DID create everything, I have to admit that the entire ID argument just doesn't hold up logically without a pre-existing belief. The presupposition is that the "current" was the "goal" (a position that is not self-evident, but a matter of belief, and a belief which I happen to hold, btw). The response is obviously that everything fits because if it did not fit, we would not be here and, here is the kicker, SOMETHING ELSE WOULD BE HERE! At each stage of possibilities, something else could have happened and the universe would then fit THAT instead of what we have now.

What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took, everything would fit that path or it wouldn't be there.

Now, I do believe God created the universe and everything in it. And I DO think that God designed every process that is now in place in this universe and He knew exactly how it would all turn out. And I also believe that He has purposefully intervened in His creation when and where it fit His plan to do so (a particular event 2000 years ago, for example), and that He will do so again. And yes, I can FEEL God in the many wonders of the universe and this planet.

But I also have to recognize that God very well may have created the world to work exactly as it would work without his Divine involvement. He created it so perfectly that He needs no "fine tuning" as the ID'ers like to call it.

In short, the whole ID argument can only be convincing to those, like myself, who already believe that this current state of the universe, with Man sitting here as we are, is how it had to end up. Thus, it is an argument that can only preach to the choir, but has no logical or persuasive effect to those who do not share this pressuposition. Atheists, I must reluctantly admit, are right to reject it.

"But then how do we know God exists?!", the Christians exclaim (and atheists too, for that matter).

Faith. The evidence of things NOT seen.

Experience. The personal relationship with the all-powerful.

The Word. God's timeless message to all of us.

If we are to reach the non-believer, Chrsitians must do so on a theological, philosophical and relational level, not by an attempt to "prove" God must have designed everything.