Expert: Tom Whiting - 8/21/2010

Question
QUESTION: Hello. I have found some interesting arguments from various experienced scientists regarding the origin of the universe/life. I am not necessarily asking you to change your beliefs, however, I would simply like to know whether or not these arguments are valid. Here are some resources I found (some even appear to come from reliable sources):

http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm
http://spot.colorado.edu/~gravesp/GodandScienceJAIR.PDF
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/Letter.html
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htm#Doesn%27t%20the%20scientific%20cr
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fww
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/javor2/default.html

...and one scientist actually uses the law of thermodynamics as an argument: http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/godexist.htm

Again, I am not necessarily asking you to change your beliefs, but I am only asking whether or not those arguments are valid. Based on my knowledge, it looks like they comply with scientific laws, however, they may be purporting to, and I may not realize it, so I wish to have confirmation from a second party. Thanks very much.

ANSWER: FOLLOW UP:
Oh, and this is NOT a "belief" thingy. I have no 'belief' on this particular subject.   Belief deals only with things that we can collect no data, no observations, no substance... things like the burning bush, the Virgin birth, the existence of God, these are beliefs.

There is no belief required for creation, as there are plenty of data and obsrvations that are available. So it (science and scientific discovery) is an accept/Reject mode, not a 'belief' mode.
If you accept it, fine.  But if you reject it, then the monkey is
on YOUR back (no pun intended, of course)... to present an even better explanation WITH a viable and obvious proof. That's the way science works... it doesn't tear down what we have, it adds to, and/or modifies current acceptance.

EXAMPLE how it works: When Einstein said to Newton, Hey your theory
on gravity is not correct, it's not a force, it's a curvature of space due to presence of a mass, he was laughed at. But he offered up a required proof... photograph the sun at a total solar eclipse (in 1919) and you'll see the stars around the sun are displaced slightly outward. That can't happen with "Newton's View" of gravity.
They did, it was, and the rest is history.
That's how it works!  So don't tear down, that's not the way science works...  YOU come up with a better explanation, AND furnish us with a viable, obvious proof, and then maybe we'll examine it and accept it, like we did with Einstein. That's how it works under Accept/Reject, so forget the "belief BS".
Tom


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I think I misinterpreted something. Please kindly clarify. I saw your "belief" (alleging something without evidence) and "accept/reject" (based on some evidence, but evidence that is not solid) definitions, but I wasn't sure how you defined "the existence of God". In the first paragraph, I saw that it was categorized as "belief", but in the second, you categorized "creation" as "accept/reject". "Creation" implies "God". Please kindly explain. Thanks.

Answer
I didn't define God, you do. I simply stated that that our  "invisible good friend"  entity (God in some languages and religions) is a belief. (We have no hard data).   Creation to YOU implies God, not necessarily to me (I really don't know)... Obviously to agnostics and atheists (I'm not one) think of creation as something separate from a Supreme Being... perhaps as a normal act of mother nature (?).  So there was no "implying" at all.
Take the reverse notion....
Before the Big Bang, there was a Primordial Void of absolutely nothing, or so we think... does this prior-BB empty and voided time period... "imply" that there is NO God?   Of course not.
We just don't really know, do we, if you want to be perfectly honest.
We only like to think... that a Supreme Being exists, that's all religion is, is it not?  All religions in fact.

BTW, is this not more of a subject for either Biology, philosophy,
or theology?  Why did you pick the science of astronomy for your
question?  This is pretty far removed from the birth of stars, spectral sequences,  formation of galaxies, cosmology, and formation/distribution of planets, is it not?  Carbon based life is
a biology subject, not an astronomical one. Some of us in astronomy
could care less about the biology aspect of outer space.  Some of us are more concerned with the formation process of stars, rather than
carbon-based lifeforms which to date, only constitute one planet.
(Ahh..astrobiology, the only college course without a subject!) as yet.  Although I guess it beats taking astrology (Ugh... a dirty word for astronomers) and it's close relatives,  'fortune telling' palm reading, and ouiga boards.

As far as evidence in concerned, it either agrees or refutes the current ideas and thinking of the Universe. If it refutes, then it's back to the drawing board for a new theory. (that's how science works)...you don't tear down what we've accomplished, you find new data and develop new ideas, but those new ideas have to also support the true observational data already at hand.

But to be specific, I'm sure that you've read somewhere that our human DNA matches to over 99% the other primates, not to mention the
actual physical characteristics and even socialogical characteristics of the other primates. DNA is hard evidence that can be taken into a court of law, and IS in fact, in the case of paternity suits. With the Big Bang, Pensias and Wilson's accidental discovery of the cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMBR) in 1965 is also hard evidence that can be taken into a court of law, along with the outward flow... proportional outward flow, of the receding galaxies.
There is still some slight room available for an alternate correct
theory for each subject, but those windows are only open 1/100 of an inch, and they are closing rapidly with higher technology and even
more supporting evidence agreeing with the previous evidence.  Remember though, we're to the point where Carl Sagan aptly stated, "Extraordinary claims (anything attempting to supplant either evolution or the Big Bang scenerio) requires extraordinary data and extraordiary proof!"  Hard scientic proof, not nebulous 2000 year old statements (actually interpretations by us humans) from any theological book... whose erronous interpretation mis-led mankind for over 2000 years with its interpretation that the Earth didn't move, and was in the center of the Universe, and everything revolved around the Earth.  Ask Galileo, G.Bruno, and Servitus, the latter two monks being burned at the stake by the fundamentalist, so-called Instantaneous Creationists... for arguing FOR a moving (rotating and revolving) planet Earth! Galileo was put under house arrest for the remainder of his life by those same people too, and Galileo was right, and the.... others were wrong.  

You only accept a revolving and rotating Earth NOW, because of Science, not theology and bibles. And don't say, well that
was over 400 years ago.  SO WHAT?  The fundamentalists were WRONG then and science was correct, and it's the exact same thing today, except different subjects, that's all.  Review your history of that subject when you get time!   Fool me once (for over 2000 years!), shame on you; fool me twice and shame on me.

I close this final E-mail (because it's not really astronomy) with a quote from P. J. O'Rourke,...  "To mistrust science and deny the validity of the scientific method is to resign your job as a human.  You'd better go look for work as a plant or wild animal."

End of this, really philosophical subject, as it's not science oriented... you can now go back to reading your false metaphysical internet posts now.  They will support your core "beliefs" far better than I can... and I'm not about to take hours and hours of reading and disputing them with you (YOu wouldn't accept my explanations anyway)... YOu take the real science courses, then you can dispute them.
Clear Skies,
Tom  
PS... (And as far as laws of thermodynamics, cover open systems as opposed to closed systems, and you'll see how erronous that argument is... been over it 100 times in the past, and I'm not about to cover it again, now.) Besides, that's physics, not astronomy, which is more
an Earth-science subject, as opposed to physics.