Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
David E. Weldon, Ph.D. (David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM)
Fri, 19 May 1995 22:38:37 GMT
}==========Yasha Hartberg, 5/15/95==========
However, what are your controls? You have to have some sort of
}control to prove that your technique is working and that it is
}demonstrating a positive result. You also must have some sort of
}control to not only show that your technique won't give spurious
}results but also that your technique is capable of giving an
}In the meantime, the Hopi were never concerned because you
}defining their gods within you're experimental design. I'd say
}chances of getting a grant renewal are nil!
How very strange...I didn't know experimental controls were absolutely
necessary. Explain how you would use them in astronomy.
}So let me repeat. The existence of God is NOT a scientific
Apparently you are not familiar with the work of Penrose. He claims to be
researching the existance of God and to be defining a physics of mind (see
OMEGA_POINT_THEORY). Don't be so hasty!
}Unfortunately, too few people realize this and, especially in such
}as evolutionary theory, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang, scientists
}being accused of trying to disprove the existence of God. This is
}creating a tremendous backlash against the whole of scientific
Nobody I know claims this and, for better or worse, I know a very large number
of theists, many of whom are very well known scientists (e.g., Owen Gingerich,
Sir John Ecles, Karl Popper, etc.)
}At least in part this is contributing to the growing trend toward
}religious fundamentalism. If such a movement gains much more
}may find it almost impossible to get funding to do research in
}the people at large consider to challenge the existence of God.
}Texas A&M University
}"The most beautiful thing in Tokyo is McDonald's." Andy Warhol