AstroBlonde

Yet another newspaper article about religion and science. This time it's a scientist in chemistry from Göteborg, Sweden, who is trying to explain how the Bible actually can describe the science we know today. He said he has studied the Bible very closly and also that he is a scientist and therefore kinda know science. First of all he's blaming the translators of the Bible not to use the right translations. Me, myself and I would say that perhaps someone (not pointing any fingers here... hehe) is trying to make the Bible fit the reality better by using different words. But really, it doesn't matter, because you can interpret it in so many ways so words don't really matter. Then he says that the Bible translators probably didn't thought the Bible had anything to do with the reality and therefore the words was fitted to that type of picture. Wow! Talk about an accusement! Me, myself and I believe the best in people and think the translators really tried to translate it as good as they could. I would say this accusement is a typical argument from someone who is really anxious to get the pices toghether, and therefore blaming everything or everyone to make it happen. But once again "what ever, no proof but it's not impossible".

Then he continues. In the Bible it says that the Universe didn't have a shape when it was created and that's what scientists belive about Big Bang today. I say "Hold your horses here!". We don't have any equations to say anything about that time, in other words you can't even assume that it didn't have any shape. Then he continues with that the Universe slowly was wakening and filled with hydrogen during a phase with darkness, death and chaos. Well, I wouldn't say that the inflation phase of the Universe was a slow wakening. It was more like a crazy wakening with an expansion we've never seen since. The Universe wasn't immediately filled with hydrogen, and darkness, death and chaos hmm... Well, just leave the explanation to astrophysicist instead of letting some guy working with chemistry explain it. But I can totally understand that people would fall asleep if the newspaper started to explain every detail. Let us just say it's not that easy...

Then he continues with the origin of life. Of course he does! He says that the majority of the scientists don't think it's strange that life exists but it's because they've never cared to examin the options. I say "huh?". I wonder how many experiments that actually tried to create life in laboratory and examine the chemicals on comets and asteroids and so on. But anyway, he continues... The scientists are assuming that life came up by its own and there has to be several different properties interacting for that to happen. That the chance of life to come up without a creator is really small.

First of all I have to say I'm really interested in how he came up with the fact that the chance is small. Does he know something about life in the Universe that the rest of the people don't? Does he know how many times life has "tried" to evolve in the Universe? Maybe life has 100% chance of evolving if the conditions are right, and what is the chance that the conditions are right? That statement is totally nonsense I have to say. And if there is a creator, like a god, how does he know the odds of that creator to create life? The guy is a scientist for god's sake, is it too much to ask for him to be a little bit more scientific about his statements?

Also, I wonder what is so wrong about saying that everything that happened in the Universe caused us to live here? If something would have gone "wrong" we wouldn't be here today and therefore we would never been able to think about it. What is so wrong to think that way? Is it not good because the Bible says otherwise? No, I have to say, after reading this article, that the guy has had some tough times with his company (which is also mentioned in this article). The guy just needs some publicity so the business would run better.

My conclusions from this article are thereby: This guy is in serious need of having answers in life, and about life, and by changing words and interpret the Bible in different ways he can come up with explanations that suit him and science. I could probably do the thing by reading and interpret a Donald Duck comic... The foundation of his statements are poor which is surprising coming from a scientist. Also, if you want to appear as serious do not write your company's web address in the article.

Here's the Swedish article: Forskare: Gudstro är det enda vetenskapliga

One has to keep in mind here that scientists jobs are to explain things we see. Our job is not to prove if God exists or not. Scientists are just trying to understand processes and give them an explaination. If we're not sure we try to leave the field open. Scientists are trying to publish research without involving religion or personal oppinions. Sometimes it's really hard to do so, and therefore alot of reseach are double checked. All this research takes alot of time to do, and scientists normally don't wanna go out in media until they are very sure about the facts. Scientists, and especially astrophysicists, are working in a field that often can "contradict" religious belives. That makes the area more sensitive and religious people seem to belive that astrophysicists are trying to attack the religion. As I said earlier, that is not our job, and it's not our fault that religios people have a big problem of adapting science into the Bible. We're just trying to tell the people how things seem to work out there, without relgious aspects. Therefore I find it very interesting that articles like this get published over and over again. You hardly ever see a scientist publish a serious article that are trying to defend science against religion, but very often you see religios people trying to defend religion against science. Could it be that religious people find it harder and harder to defend the Bible? Are they threatened by the fact that scientists are working without considering the God-equation? I have to ask, because it sure looks that way...

Anyway... Today I have to give a great one to Staffan Linné who held a presentation about Lyman alpha leakage in galaxies. He did it as a part of his bechelor's thesis. Before the presentation he came up to me and said "Åsa, I can't pronounce 'equivalent width' fast in english". I laughed and told him to mumble it out instead, as a joke. I also told him that if you say "hydrogen" too many times it can be hard to pronounce. He looked at me and said "shit, I have to say that a couple of times too". During the presentation he finally came to the 'equivalent width' part and yep, he couldn't pronounce it right, and he started to laugh. Poor little guy, but it's hard to pronounce! Especially when you're a bit nevous. But the presentation was really good! Yay! Good work Staffan!