Whom the Gods Destroy They First Make Mad Dept.

More silly, stupid or dishonest bovine excrement from the Christian right, History Revisionism Division:

In cosmology, we had to wait decades for the theism-friendly big bang theory to beat out atheism-friendly theories like the eternal universe model, the steady-state model, the oscillating model, etc. Piles of taxpayer money wasted trying to prove atheistic flights of fancy. But in the end, the evidence for the big bang was too much for the atheistic theories, and we beat them out.

I hadn’t realized Christians championed Big Bang against atheists.  Wait until the creationists learn about this.


7 Responses to Whom the Gods Destroy They First Make Mad Dept.

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Wintery Knight appears never to have actually read Jastrow. Here’s a comment that he couldn’t stand the sight of, and deleted, probably because it points out the obvious:

    If you’re going to quote Jastrow, shouldn’t you at least be faithful to the thoughts he was imparting? He was arguing for methodological naturalism, he was arguing for Big Bang against creationists who oppose the idea (contrary to your statement — you must not hang with many creationists in America), he was arguing for Darwin’s view.

    Doesn’t that color what he said?



  2. Porlock Junior says:

    Science,darn it.
    Oh, for a Preview of fire, if I can’t have a Muse.


  3. Porlock Junior says:

    Oops, about that rejection of the Big Bang by all the atheistic mainstream guys:

    Hoyle and his co-authors “are clearly bitter that many cosmologists favored Big Bang models during this period of inconclusive data.” (from a review in Scince of A Different Approach to Cosmology by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V. Narlikar, the book from 2000 that I mentioned before)

    Everybody always thinks the other guys are in charge and are bullying his side.


  4. Porlock Junior says:

    The rather silly tale of astronomers rejecting Big Bang because it was too much like Creation has been around a while, and isn’t just from the fevered imaginations of bloggers. I ran into it in a Sunday paper story back in the early 70s or so, put out by somebody who was not actually a certifiable idiot or lunatic. When I saw this, I realized I’d forgotten the guy’s name, but when I went to the posting, I was reminded: Robert Jastrow, an actual physicist and astronomer with NASA.

    One has to assume that RJ, an insider, really did hear some nonsensical objections such as he complained about; but if atheist astronomers were proselytizing against God’s Big Bang, they were sure doing a bad job of it. All that your science-reading layman would see back in those days (in Scientific American, for instance) showed both sides, never whispered of religious or anti-religious arguments as bearing on the controversy, and tended (in my reading) to show Big Bang as the more accepted idea.

    Not surprising that it was ahead, since it was the first on the scene and didn’t even have a specific name till Hoyle invented “Big Bang” as a term of derision and then invented the Steady State theory. Also, Steady State was awfully hard to swallow, with its particles randomly turning up from literally nowhere in random places, fast enough to keep the density of matter constant as the universe expanded.

    Hoyle, note, is one of the guys they quote] as a debunker of Evillution. That’s because he later Converted and gave up those atheistic ideas? No luck: he was working on steady-state models to the end of his life, co-authoring a book on it in 2000. Not a good spokesman for the godliness of the Big Bang; but these guys want, as the priest and metaphysical poet(*) said, to eat their cake and have it too.

    (*) George Herbert. Also our source for “Living well is the best revenge.” That should win you a bar bet any day.


  5. Marion Delgado says:

    The Christians/Big Bang story is that because LeMaitre was a priest, most scientists rejected the Big Bang theory, and also that it’s more like the “In The Beginning … let there be Light!” paradigm.

    A lot of I.D. creationists cite that heavily.

    Unlike Dembski and Behe, however, LeMaitre won out, even with people who were very skeptical at first, and very prestigious, like Einstein. Because the evidence was there when they changed their minds.

    From initiation to acceptance was not all that long.


  6. Evan says:

    Well put Scott, above(below).

    The writer implies so much deliberateness and coordination in data interpretation. A great demonstration of how one tends to project their own framework when trying to interpret the behavior of others, that is “We Christians take direction from a single source, therefore scientists (through no imaginable mechanism) must be coordinating their efforts and marching to some sort of drummer.” Top-down authoritarians never understand bottom-up decision making.


  7. Scott Hanley says:

    I’ve been told that Hubble’s claim of an expanding universe was viewed with suspicion for exactly that reason – it seemed to imply a creation moment and some thought it smacked of an attempt to sneak Genesis back into cosmology. But the redshift was real and everyone had to accept it.

    It’s actually a nice example of scientists following the evidence wherever it leads, even if their personal philosophies make them uncomfortable with the implications.


Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: