Best Universities are Blue

Here is another nice quote regarding crop circles.

Meteorologist James W. Deardorff, professor emeritus at the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University, and previously a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, states in a 2001 Physiologia Plantarum commentary that the variety, complexity and artistry of crop circles "represent the work of intelligence,"

Why do these scientists have no problem accepting the fact that crop circles require intelligent design, but reject even the possibility that life may have had an intelligent designer.

 

I think I understand now why some church leaders do not want the theory of evolution taught in schools.

Once you put the thought in a person's mind to question the basis of a so-called "faith", you lose the faith entirely.

I am witnessing that very disconnect in this thread/discussion. It seems as though the "anti-faith"/pro-science side and the pro-faith/"anti-science" side have irreconcilable differences in opinion.

I think.

 

or perhaps there's a lot more closet NASCAR fans than anyone ever imagined!

 

1. Are you willing to accept that ______ is a theory?

2. Are you willing to accept that the _______ theory is contingent on other knowledge and theories, and that if those other theories are proved wrong, then the _____ theory will have to be revised or abandoned entirely?

The answer is "yes" for the Big Bang. I suspect your answer will be "no" if you put "the existence of God" in those blanks. That is why one concept is scientific and the other is not.

 

First, this person was not speaking for all astrophysicists, or all scientists, for that matter.

And second, on what are you basing your accusation that "astrophysicists" believe that the miracle of life is too complex to be random in nature?

And tell me, please, exactly how you know that these scientists don't believe in God. That they don't believe in intelligent design.

 

I am going to back on my own vow not to respond to you just this once. You really should do some research before spouting off.

Bernard Haisch is one of the top/foremost astrophysicists in the world. Here is his resume.

Chief Science Officer - ManyOne Networks, Inc. (2002-present)
Director - California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics, Palo Alto (1999-2002)
Staff Scientist - Lockheed Martin, Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Palo Alto (1979-1999)
Scientific Editor - The Astrophysical Journal (1993-2002)
Deputy Director - Center for EUV Astrophysics, Univ. Calif., Berkeley (1992-1994)
Editor-in-Chief - Journal of Scientific Exploration (1988-1999)
Visiting Scientist - The Astronomical Institute, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands (1977-1978)
Research Associate - Joint Inst. Lab. Astrophysics, Univ. Colorado, Boulder (1975-1977, 1978-1979)

Ph.D. - University of Wisconsin, Madison, Astronomy (1975)
B.S. with High Distinction - Indiana University, Bloomington, Astrophysics (1971)

Principal Investigator experience:

NASA Guest Investigator Programs:
IUE, Einstein, Exosat, ROSAT, EUVE, ASCA, XTE
NASA Research Program:
Inertia and Gravitation in the Zero-Point Field Model: Tests and Implications

Hardware Program:
AFGL/AURA Program: Solar X-ray Multilayer Telescope

Memberships:
International Astronomical Union
American Astronomical Society
Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society
European Astronomical Society
Associate Fellow, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Patron, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Astronomical Society of the Pacific
American Association of Physics Teachers
Society for Scientific Exploration
Phi Beta Kappa
Sigma Xi
Phi Kappa Phi

Overr 130 papers in:

Astrophysical Journal, Physical Review, Physics Letters,
Nature, Science, Astronomy & Astrophysics,
Astronomical Journal, American Journal of Physics, J. Geophysical Research,
Publication of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific,
Annual Reviews Astron. Astrophys., Foundations of Physics,
Irish Astronomical Journal, Solar Physics,
J. of the Astronautical Sciences, Sky and Telescope,
Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society,
Annalen der Physik,
Advances in Space Research,
Journal de Physique,
Comments on Astrophysics,
J. of the British Interplanetary Society,
various Conference Proceedings.

Books:
Solar and Stellar Flares. B. Haisch and M. Rodono (eds.), Kluwer Acad. Press, (1989).
The Many Faces of the Sun: A Summary of the Results from NASA's Solar Maximum Mission. K. Strong, J. Saba, B. Haisch and J. Schmeltz (eds.), Springer Verlag, (1999).

Co-Chairman - Intl. Astron. Union Colloquium 104: Solar and Stellar Flares, Stanford Univ. (1988)
Intl. Astron. Union Colloquium 152: Astrophysics in the Extreme Ultraviolet, U.C. Berkeley (1995)

Member, Sci. Org. Comm. - 9th Cambridge Cool Star Workshop, Florence, Italy, (1995)


Member Editorial Board:
Solar Physics (1992--1995)
Speculations in Science & Technology (1995--1999)


Committees:
NASA SADAP Review Comm. (1987)
NASA ADP Review Comm, Panel Chair (1989)
AIAA Space Sciences and Astronomy Technical Comm. (1991-1994)
NASA ROSAT Review Comm. (1992)
NASA MSFC Space Transportation Review Panel (1998)

Need I go on
Here is a quote from his paper "Freeing the Scientific Imagination from Fundamentalist Scientism"

Modern science, especially in the United States, is finding itself doing intellectual battle with religious fundamentalism, most notably in the arena of evolution versus creationism. As a professional scientist I understand the necessity of combating the creationist hodge podge of unsupportable alternatives to the evidence for evolution.

- He indeed may not speak for 'all' astrophysicists, but I think his views are pretty much shared in the discipline.

(side note: He has some interesting things to say about the instant "creation" of light/energy and has an excellent paper on the claims in Genesis. He explains how even though they are fables, the sudden appearence of energy may not be a bad alternative to investigate)

Would you like for me to post similar information on James W. Deardorff

 

I was out of the office for a few minutes. Did anyone prove the existence of God or evolution was I was out?;-)

 

er....while I was out.

 

They represent the work of intelligent but easily bored college students who happen to have access to ropes and planks.

If you want to know how to make crop circles, it's all here:
http://www.circlemakers.org/exhibit_a.html

On the other hand, if Deardorff or anyone else can prove that crop circles are created by God or UFOs, James Randi will give them a million dollars.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

 

Frankly, his resume is not that impressive, when compared to other leading astrophysicists such as Hawking or Weinberg or many others. Haish certainly seems to be an expert on the physics of UFO's and crop circles. Frankly, I don't find that impressive. Obviously, you do.

But even if he actually were the undisputed leading astorphysicists in the world, it doesn't mean that he speaks for everyone in his profession. Do you really not understand that?

This is like me saying that Fred Phelps is one of the most prominent Christian scholars in the U.S., so his views are obviously shared by all Christians.

It's simply not true.

You are making a generalization, with no evidence, based on what YOU THINK that one person believes, and then assuming that your already flawed assumption applies to everyone in that profession.

Typical.

 

This is a sincere question. Can you provide me the name of one or two leading astorphysicists who support intelligent design?

No, no its not.
It would be like you telling me that Fred Phelps is bigot, and so therefore, most bigots share his views.

I don't think anyone but you would argue that most astrophysicists are supporters of evolution.

Are you saying you believe I am wrong for making the assumption that most astropysicists are evolutionists?

Or are you attempting to tell me that you believe most astrophysicists support intelligent design?

BTW, I have seen the discovery channel show on crop circles and I know they are man made, which helps support the theory that they are most likely not random.

 

Does not creation itself prove the existence of God?

 

No. Because I don't go around asking astrophysicists about their religious beliefs, and believe it or not, not everyone feels that they have to publicly announce their beliefs (i.e., make it part of the screen name, for example.)

No. You are making an assumption about someone's religion based on the fact that they are scientists. One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other.

Do you believe in airplanes? Do you believe that nuclear weapons exist? Those of products of science, so should I assume that since you believe in them, you are not religious? It's complete nonsense.

Wow, Michael realizes that something man made is "most likely" not random. What's next? You believe that the sun doesn't actually revolve around the earth?

 

Typical.

Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in

 

ah, let's see. If you assume that what you see has been created, and you ASSUME that what is created is created by God, then I guess you're right. Unfortunately you're kind of using an assumption to prove what you've already assumed. In short, no, you haven't proven anything.

If I believe that the Lock Ness Monster is the creator of all things, then doesn't creation itself prove the existence of the LNM?

If I believe that Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are the creators, then doesn't creation prove their existence as Gods - Hindu Gods in this case?

You get the idea. I respect your belief, and I can find beauty in it as well, but if you keep trying to pass it off as science, you'll keep going in circles, forever and ever (until the universe gets cold and dies, since as scientists are discovering, the universe is accelerating apart, so it looks we're all in for a slow cold death. )

 

forgot to Jankocheck my prior post: Loch

Hope there wasn't anything else.

 

Hi Tom,

What would you call it?

 

I don't really have a problem with this part of the assumption. I think we can all agree, fairly safely, that everything we see has been created in some sense. We don't always understand the mechanisms of creation, but nonetheless...

The problem is with the other half of your assumption - that everything that has been created must have been created by God. Your assumption assumes, a priori, the existence of God, as well as the idea that everything that is created must have been created by the hand of God.

Your proof, or conclusion, is embedded in your assumption - not good scientific method.

And as any beginning philosophy student would argue, you've merely explained one mystery by inserting another.

I have no problem with your belief in God. I subscribe to some sort of convoluted theory about higher powers - one that is such a mish mash, I'd probably be embarrassed to try and explain it. In other words, I do believe there is more to this world than meets the eye. I also believe that science does not, and perhaps can not ever, explain all of the mysteries of life. What would be a good mathematical model of nostalgia, for example? However, I don't generally believe in the God that is pushed by strict Bible followers either. In fact, when I meet people that claim to have figured it all out, and that everything is found in the Bible, and this "word" of the Lord is infallible etc., it sort of ruins the whole picture for me. I prefer to think that there remain mysteries unsolvable and ineffable.

Moreover, it makes me crazy when Creationists pooh pooh the Big Bang Theory, and then in the same breath claim that the existence of God is elementary on logical grounds. Anyone who has read Kuhn knows that science advances in fits and starts, and that there are always inconsistencies and anomalies that violate existing theories. Sometimes the theory gets better; sometimes we just live with it. Even mathematics is not completely consistent, and can't be. That was proven by Gödel. There are still some scientists who don't believe that HIV causes AIDS (Duesberg, I believe). He (they) may be right, or at least partially so. But does that mean that we can just fall back on some nonsensical default and say that God punishes gays with AIDS - and then call that science? No.

Creationism is not science. It's not even close, despite the holes in BBT, and despite the possible revisions and refinement of that theory in the future. Science evolves; it doesn't just happen ready made and perfect.

 

The greatest minds in human history have been debating this subject since before the Age of Enlightenment. I don't think it's going to be resolved on the degreeinfo.com discussion board.

 

The greatest minds in human history have been debating this subject since before the Age of Enlightenment. I don't think it's going to be resolved on the degreeinfo.com discussion board.