meet the ray comfort of astronomy
Just a few weeks ago, in a guest post on The Panda’s Thumb, I warned that creationists are trying to assault astronomy and physics. And now ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Spike Psarris, an electrical engineer who’s tackling “the intellectual bankruptcy of evolution” with movies about astronomy which are a bargain at just $19 per DVD. Between his videos, interviews and his website, he repeats only ten or twenty times how he went to work in space programs as an “atheist and evolutionist” only to emerge a Christian creationist after he was swayed by overwhelming evidence of something or other. Hence, he obviously has the authority to put all of modern astronomy and biology in its place and he’ll start with a 105 minute trip through our solar system.
The short previews he provides have an absolutely alarming stupidity per statement quotient, as if Psarris is on a mission to compete with Ray Comfort in ignorance. Every other sentence he utters either stars or ends with how some piece of evidence about our observations of the solar system either prove evolution wrong or come up with results that are “devastating to the evolutionary model.” Now, even ignoring the obvious fact that evolution has nothing to do with planetary formation or astronomy in general, only the changes seen in active biospheres over long periods of time, and focusing only on the supposed evidence he tries to present, even an amateur astronomer can point out that for someone who worked in a space program, he doesn’t seem to know an awful lot about space.
For example, one of Psarris’ assertions is that the evolutionary model predicts that Jupiter has to have a large core but Galileo supposedly found that this core was no more than three Earth masses. Really? You don’t say, huh? Because astronomers estimate that its mass is between 14 and 18 Earths. He also claims that there was some sort of evolutionary prediction that Jupiter’s atmosphere shouldn’t have argon or an entire host of other gasses. And come to think of it, I’m sure there’s something about it in The Origin of the Species. Oh no, wait, he means in our universe, not some parallel astrophysical realm. Never mind. After asserting that a non- existent model has been proven false, he also whips out a bit of purple prose from a study’s abstract about a gap in our knowledge of Jupiter’s formation, written decades ago as proof that astronomers just make it up as they go along, feeding you lies and half-baked guesses.
Psarris repeats that trick whenever he can. Make a false or non-existent assertion, whip out some obscure, out of context quote, rinse and repeat, all the while chanting about the evolutionary model being wrong or an evolutionary prediction failing or how evolution is false, paying no attention that he’s miserably failing at trying to use physics to discard astronomy rather than actually dealing with the theory’s realm. After about five or six minutes, his anti-scientific mantra is like moaning in a porn flick, there for no other reason than as a repetitive background noise for viewers to enjoy. What exactly was he doing in a space program if he’s unable to tell the difference between biology and physics? How is his degree in electrical engineering in any way a qualification to spout inanities about observable and well known scientific facts? And why does he think people will really be willing to spend $19 on this absurd bit of space themed creation erotica?
You realize Ray Comfort is satire, right?
Ah, only if Ray Comfort were satire, the world would be a much better place…
Oh, if ONLY Ray Comfort were a Poe… Could you imagine the devastation he could wreak on YECs by simply stating “Hey, folks, I’ve been messing with you all along; evolution’s real, deal with it”?
We can dream…
Never underestimate the willingness of the gullible to fooled.
What Amadan said.
And being the social and political creatures we are, prefer the simple, secure and comfortable in stressful times of change.
“Worked in the space program” in this case means “was hired to help design a minor electrical component that required absolutely no knowledge of astronomy”. I’ll bet a dollar on it.
Skeptics of the pseudo, kind like you lot, always laugh at alternative views. Science can’t prove anything conclusively. Science denies lots of things it can’t prove, but that does not mean it could not be true. There could be an alternate rational explanation for the creation that you lot wish to ignore, as it just couldn’t possibly be in your narrowminded estimation of the universe
“Science cant prove anything conclusively.”
Science doesn’t prove things. It tests hypotheses and builds theories from those that can be shown as valid based on rigorous testing and peer review.
“Science denies lots of things it cant prove, but that does not mean it could not be true.”
To deny something means that verifiable proof has been presented and ignored. This isn’t what happens with most so-called “alternative” views. Instead, they’re presented as fact and when they’re shown to be wrong or lacking evidence behind them, their advocates start attacking scientists for being denialists rather than gathering better evidence.
“There could be an alternate rational explanation for the creation that you [sic] lot wish to ignore…”
My “lot” wants more evidence than quote mining and clearly ignorant statements. Asking people to prove their theories rather than just make up their own reality isn’t some sort of unreasonable demand.
There is a feeling among rationalists that the world is slowly going mad. The reason? The continuing growth of fundamentalist beliefs concerning Creationism. But what is at the root of this growing phenomenon?
Well, first of all, science cannot ever prove it wrong. They can rant and rave; they can show how science shows it is not the case but at best, this can only show the working mechanisms of a process, and not the whys.
Thus, God is immune to the scientific process.
And the sooner science accepts this and stops decrying the Creationist, the sooner there may be the return of a little commonsense in the debate on both sides.
This is not simply an opinion of mine. I think it can be backed up by sound reasoning. And not reasoning to do with science or Creationism, but the process of the very conflict involved.
I think there is a valid law for such conflicts.
I call it the law of opposite effect. It can be explained quite simply. The more one stance becomes entrenched, the more the other will dig in its heels.
Thus, the condemnation from either side will guarantee the reasons for condemnation will increase. Hence, the problem isnt science or Creationism, but the battle between the two.
And it gets worse.
As the conflict continues, and stances become more fundamental, the point comes when both sides become fanatical. When this point arrives, all commonsense disappears.
But more than this, my law has another element: basically, the more fanatical you become, the more you will further the opposite outcome to that intended. Hence, science guarantees Creationism, and vice versa.
And the problem is also of paradigms.
Science is now grounded in a totally material world, with nothing other than what can be observed. Well, one thing can be observed above the material the innate need in people for something above the material.
Im talking about a form of spirituality. Now, to me, spirituality is about bonding of man to man, mankind to nature, and nature to the universe. It is a form of holistic love, I suppose, and I assume scientists DO fall in love, despite their rationality.
Hence, in a world that does not offer intellectual ideals concerning this process, the gap will be filled by systems that do. And the ultimate expression of this is an entire universe created through love by God.
An urge towards spirituality will always exist. Whether this means there is a supernatural or not is beside the point. And as long as science decides there is no such thing, they will continue to fuel movements that say there is. And to be quite honest, in terms of the knowledge we have, they could be just as right as scientists think THEY are.
One, you cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, and creationist claimants have yet to grant anysort of proofs.
The ignorant speeches of Anthony North are those that could not have been born without a higher education.
“one thing can be observed above the material the innate need in people for something above the material.”
Oh, you’re talking about hormones? Irregular electrical activity in the brain? Biopsychology?
“as long as science decides there is no such thing, they will continue to fuel movements that say there is.”
Science says “there is no proof for such a thing”, the joy of it is that should proof arrive science will say “okay, that’s a shock, but okay”, whereas creationists seem unswayable by any amount of evidence.
Oh knock it off. i applaud parris. this is the first time i have ever seen anyone on either side of the debate show actual textbooks on physics, chemistry and astronomy, citing sources for his points of view. what he says makes sense.
all the evolutionists do is spew the “billions of years” yet 0 evidence to back it up. whatever happened to science being an objective way of going about studies? it uses to be you go into a lab, look under a microscope, use a petri dish, Bunsen burner and test tubes, dna and study gases that you can actually use, see and feel. this is what science is about. science is not about seeing something and then using a computer simulation based on only what you see and then say “ok thats what happened. this is billions of years old and is light years away.” why oh why is it that astronomy is always the exception to the rule when it comes to real science and astronomers can always get away with whatever they say being considered a theory?
i’m sick and tired of astronomers and their ridiculous observations. at least let the engineers make the observations. they actually make the machinery and do the real work. there are way too many astronomers. who needs them? i say we get rid of some.
“what [Psarris] says makes sense.”
If you pay no attention to the context, it certainly does. It also makes sense if you choose to ignore that his sources are actually mangled quotes from decade old studies which don’t even say what he claims they do.
“whatever happened to science being an objective way of going about studies?”
It’s still the gold standard which is why Psarris hasn’t done any. You don’t create your own theory by abusing the work of others out of context and making up false claims that are then not backed up by any evidence.
“science is not about seeing something and then using a computer simulation based on only what you see”
No, it’s not. Which is why computer models are used to derive falsifiable predictions that are supposed to be confirmed by observational evidence. Again, Psarris’ model, if we can call it that, makes no predictions of anything. Rather it just says that everybody’s wrong except him and his fellow pseudoscientists who also have no idea what they’re talking about.
“let the engineers make the observations. they actually make the machinery and do the real work.”
Really? We should let engineers do the jobs of people who tell them what to build and how to build it? Just because an astronomer tells an engineer to build a mirror with an X diameter and he builds it, doesn’t mean he becomes an instant expert in astronomy.
“But more than this, my law has another element: basically, the more fanatical you become, the more you will further the opposite outcome to that intended. Hence, science guarantees Creationism, and vice versa.”
Even a child could see the problem with your logic there.