Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

Rob Sheldon: If Hubble’s Law changes its name, will “Darwinian” evolution be next?

Spread the love
This image represents the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang. The red arrow marks the flow of time.
Big Bang/NASA

What about Alfred Russel Wallace? Our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon on the Hubble’s Law name change, to recognize “Big Bang” priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre:


The misappropriation of laws is a well-known institution in science.

Avogadro had nothing to do with his constant. The French just didn’t want to name it after the Austrian Loschmidt who discovered it. Likewise the Bose-Einstein condensate had little to do with Einstein; Bose couldn’t get his paper published in an English-speaking journal, so he asked Einstein to send it into Zeitschrift fur Physik. Hannes Alfven had no knowledge of “Alfven layers” “Alfven boundaries” and so on. But he was the only plasma physicist to get a Nobel Prize, so he had name recognition. Kolmogorov didn’t invent his complexity. Poincare didn’t invent a disk model. Newton didn’t invent the Newtonian telescope. Bode’s law wasn’t Bode’s. Laffer didn’t invent his curve. It just goes on and on.

Stephen G Brush is a historian at the University of Maryland, and gave a talk on “The Matthew effect” named after Jesus’ quote “to those who have more will be given, but to those who have not, even what they have will be taken away.”

So there is nothing new about misappropriation, and if we start trying to right history, entire textbooks will have to be rewritten, and a whole cadre of scientists retrained. Plus, there will be the chaos of Russian scientists who claim to have published first, but in some obscure Soviet journal that never got translated into English. (If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears…) The process will turn out to be endless.

On the contrary, the assignment of names to laws is a political one, a credit to their standing. What did the Preacher say? The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. If we reinterpret “time” to be the recognition of history, then we find perfect agreement with the naming of laws.

After all, the reason Hubble was assigned his Law was because he was an atheist, whereas the upstart Catholic monk Lemaitre thought it was proof of the validity of Genesis, undermining the whole purpose of cosmology. It was the same reason that atheist Darwin and not theist Wallace gets credit for evolution, or otherwise what would be the point?

So tell those astronomers that if they are willing to lose Hubble, then Darwin is next.

No, Rob. We mustn’t tell them. They would probably slit their throats. Consistent with our principles, we mustn’t encourage suicide. We will wait till something happens and then volunteer to help at the  Crisis Hotline.  😉

The Long Ascent: Genesis 1â 11 in Science & Myth, Volume 1 by [Sheldon, Robert] Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Hubble’s Law name change urged, to recognize Big Bang pioneer Fr. Georges Lemaitre Belgian priest Lemaitre apparently got the idea, which “underpins modern cosmology,” two years before Edwin Hubble

and

Rob Sheldon on the “grave doubts” about the Nobel-winning gravity waves: I’ve been a skeptic of the gravity wave observations from the very beginning. The noise is ONE MILLION times stronger than the signal, which in every other field of science, pretty much excludes the opportunity of seeing the signal.

3 Replies to “Rob Sheldon: If Hubble’s Law changes its name, will “Darwinian” evolution be next?

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    The mis-assignment of names of theories etc. is called Stigler’s Law. It happens all the time, even in history of science.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H, does the ‘mis-assignment’ of names, which has happened all the time in the history of science, also refer to the fact that Darwinian evolution itself has been ‘mis-assigned’ the designation as being a testable scientific theory that is open to falsification instead of being the mythological pseudoscientific religion for atheists that it really is?

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17

    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    Darwin’s Vigilantes, Richard Sternberg, and Conventional Pseudoscience
    FRED REED • SEPTEMBER 22, 2018
    Excerpt: Pseudoscience? Does not Darwinism itself qualify as pseudoscience? It is firmly based on no evidence. For most readers this assertion will seem as delusional as saying that the sun revolves around the earth. This is because we have been indoctrinated since birth in the Darwinian myth. But look at the facts.
    We are told that life arose by chance in the primeval oceans. Do we know of what those oceans consisted? (Know, not speculate, hope, it stands to reason, must have been, everybody says so). No, we do not. Do we know of what those oceans would have had to consist to bring about life? No. Do we even know what we think evolved? No. Has the chance appearance of life been replicated in the laboratory? No. Has a metabolizing, reproducing chemical complex been constructed in the laboratory, showing that it might be possible? No. Can the chance appearance be shown to be mathematically probable? No. Can Darwinism explain the existence of irreducibly complex structures? No. Does the fossil record, particularly of the Ediacaran and Cambrian, support Darwin? No.
    Darwinism was a clever metaphysical idea formed when almost nothing was known about the matter, and imposed by impassioned supporters on a near-total lack of evidence. Should not intensely believing in something that you cannot support by observation or experiment be called pseudoscience?
    http://www.unz.com/freed/darwi.....doscience/

    Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387
    Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Paper with references for each claim page; Page 37:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  3. 3
    Belfast says:

    It is well known in cricket that a ‘name’ player is harder to dismiss LBW than a bowler or lesser known, the ‘names’ themselves concede this with a shrug.

Leave a Reply