Tom Sawyer

I know a xian who used to be an astronomer.

He was trying to argue this crazy theory that the speed of light was slowing down and that's why we could see things billions of light years away, ehen they'd only been there for a few thousand. It has, of course, stopped slowing down now that we can measure it, but he was using the fact that he used to be an astronomer to try and lend some credibility to his theory.

That was the first time I ever used resources from this board to shoot down silly xian theories. It worked well - by that I don't mean that it conviced him, but he did stop talking to me about religion, which works out just as well for me.

Autonemesis

Barry Setterfield is an astronomer who has conceived <a href="http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html" target="_blank">an explanation</a> for quantum redshift that implies the universe is much younger than we expect based on current (non-creationist) theories. He's probably the most rigorous creationist paper-writer there is, though writing papers does not explain the observational problems that plague his ideas. Nevertheless, it's a giant step forward compared to typical creationist screed.

Some refutations listed <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/" target="_blank">here</a>. More can be found by simply searching for "Barry Setterfield".

wade-w

Apparently, there is some data now that may support the idea that c is not a constant.

<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992650" target="_blank">Here's a story about it.</a> Of course, no one is seriously saying that that c has changed THAT much. Note the word "slightly" in the following excerpt.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Thanks folks. Its amazing the grip religion has on us.

Tom Sawyer

wadew said:
That is an interesting article and shows just how far we have to go in understanding the universe. But like they said, there findings are only suggestive, and I would need a lot more evidence than that to see any need to change any theories.

However, if that evidence did come and it was compelling and scientifically valid, I would be more than happy to change my mind.

Amie

I'm a theist, a biology teacher with a minor in Astronomy

luvluv

Hugh Ross is a pretty big Christian apologist, and he's an astronomer. I have one of his books, actually, and he makes a pretty bold statement that most astronomers are at least deists. I've posted it here before and it's on his website <a href="http://www.reasons.org." target="_blank">www.reasons.org.</a> If you search for his book "Creator and the Cosmos" it gives you a few excerpt chapters, and in one of the chapters he says that the anthropic principle has convinced many astronomers of the existence of a Creator. I couldn't personally verify it, but that's what he says.

wade-w

It would not surprise me to find that some astronomers are deists. That is the natural position of the thinking person who accepts the teleological argument for the existence of a god.

Valentine Pontifex

That is not true. The poll did not ask about a deity of some kind; it asked specifically about a personal god. Forty percent of scientists believe in a personal god of some sort. Concepts of the supernatural are certainly not limited to a personal god. Einstein did not belief in a personal God. Neither do theists like Martin Gardner. The 40% figure seems to have been stable for nearly a century.

A followup study found that only 9% of the membership of the National Academy of Sciences believed in a personal god. This was a substitute for the original early 20th century study which had used some listing of scientists to get names. That list had a mark for distinquished scientists. They had significantly lower acceptance of a personal god Since this criteria in that early 20th century study did not exist, the late 20th century researchers who were replicating the decades prior work used NAS member instead.

I will also agree with the others, that the solar system formed via a nebula is not a disproof of God. For those who would say otherwise, let us remind what a famous quantum theorist once told Einstein: "Stop telling God what to do."

Kenny

Hello Intensity,

I am a Christian. I hold a degree in physics and in philosophy/religion. In a couple of weeks, I’ll begin a Masters in Theology program. I believe that God created the solar system and I also believe that the solar system formed through what you would probably call “natural laws.” In my view, God’s sovereignty embraces the natural order in such a way that “natural laws” are simply a means through which God acts. I do not see the propositions “God created the solar system” and “The solar system formed through processes which are part of the regularities of nature” as mutually exclusive, but as complimentary and operating on two different levels of explanation.

Think of it this way. Suppose I want to give an explanation for the formation of this post. I could try and explain it in terms of various types of physical processes -- chemical reactions in my brain, electrons moving through circuits in my computer, etc. – or I could explain it in terms of various aspects associated with my personhood and my volition – my desire to get a certain point across, my choice to sit and type a the computer, choices involving which words I will use to express my point, etc. Both explanations have value within their respective domains and neither explanation excludes the other. I see something similar going on with God’s creation of the solar system and its formation through physical regularities.

God Bless,
Kenny