James P. Hogan novel is Creationist and Velikovskian

[Ron Lambert]

I just finished reading the James P. Hogan novel, Anguished Dawn. (2003, Baen Book, distributed by Simon & Shuster) He actually rejects evolution, gradualism, and extolls the reasonableness of concluding that life on earth was created. He whole-heartedly accepts the catastrophism of Velikovsky. I didn't think an sf book like this could be published! Hogan is a long-established sf writer, and has a reputation as a hard science sf writer. It is a good, entertaining story, and I was delighted all the time I was reading it just to see these themes presented so reasonably. He also presents an economic system that may be something like the way heavenly society will be organized--without money.

Here is an excerpt, where the subject being discussed is a recent evaulation made of the genetic code to determine if it arose by chance, somehow wrote itself, or was witten by Someone who knew what He was doing:

"'When the complexity becomes too vast and the specificity too tight, you can eliminate chance as the cause. So where's the cutoff? Philospohers typically used to take an improbability of fifty orders of magnitude as a universal bound beyond which chance processes could be eliminated as the explanation. The Kronians applied a boundary--get this, Lan--of a hundred and fifty orders of magnitude! And they find organization that exceeds it.' Keene whistled and looked away for a few seconds to digest the information." op. cit., p. 179.

Hogan also talks about how modern mainstream science is "defective" and routinely suppresses evidence that contradicts the accepted theories.

He provides a bibliography at the end of the book, and it includes Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe, Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton, Not By Chance! by Lee Spetner, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods by John Woodmorappe, and many more, including all the books by Immanuel Velikovsky.

James P. Hogan is my hero!

[Bravus]

I've read some of Hogan's stuff before, and enjoyed it, and this book sounds very interesting - thanks for pointing it out, Ron.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

including all the books by Immanuel Velikovsky

---

which puts him DEEP into FICTION

/Bevin

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Immanuel Velikovsky"

It should be noted that IV has absolutely no credibility.

It is a disservice to those who believe in a creationist account to associate creationisn with the works of IV.

[Ron Lambert]

Gregory, what you say is the kind of thing that is typically said by Adventist scientists. They are so sensitive about the onus already on them by being associated with a church that promotes Creationism, that they have become afraid of anything outside the scientific mainstream of accepted theories. There was nothing fake or quackish about Velikovsky's research into ancient written records, such as observations of the conjunctions of Venus varying by several days (which they do not now) made by ancient astrologers--who certainly were competent to make the observations that they did. Something was clearly amiss in the solar system in the historical past, even if it may not have been exactly the way Velikovsky tried to explain it.

Where is our sense of fun and enjoyment in science? Where is geniune love for science? "Perfect love casteth out fear."

[Gregory Matthews]

Ron:

I will take your word for it if you say so. That is beyond my knowledge.

I have read IVs writtings, and they are several.

In my memory, they do not deal much with science. Rather they deal with ancient tablets, and things of interest to archaeologists.

IV never studied archaeology. He never studied the ancient languages that form a part of his theories. Yet, he presents himself as an infomred person who has developed challenging theories that confound the experts. It should be understood that his understanding of the ancient languages is critical to some aspects of his theories. Yet, as he cannot read them himself, he has to depend upon others to tell him what they say, with him then having the ability to critique them.

I am not certain as to where you read a comment from science in my post. I did not intend to make a scientific comment, as I do not consider him to be trained, informed, of haveing written much in the field of science. I am not aware of any comments that SDA scientists have made about him.

I am aware of comments that SDA archaeologists have made.

The bottom line: IV has no credibility whatsoever.

[cricket]

What a blanket statement. No credibility whatsoever?

[Ron Lambert]

In fact, archeologists have tended to view Velikovsky with some degree of respect; his defense of Biblical chronology over Manetho's obviously inflated chronology of Egypt did not all fall on dear ears. Some older archaeologists who already had considerable personal, professional investment in Manetho's chronology, were resistant. But younger archaeologists tended to feel Velikovsky made a lot of valid points. And the Bible has turned out to be vindicated in so many instances where it was questioned in the past, that it stands so far as the most reliable historical source known. It was mainly the astronomers and astrophysicists who were strongest in their criticism of Velilkovsky, since he was not one of them, and he suggested something that totally demolished their paradigm. I still can hear the late Carl Sagan sneeringly dismissing Velikovsky's ideas as "celestial billiards."

[Gregory Matthews]

Ron:

The respect/credibility accorded IV has been related to the area under discussion. Of course there are areas in which he is given some creedence.

On a personal basis, I tend to place IV on the same level as Ron Wyatt.

I guess that expands the discussion, doesn't it? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Ron Lambert]

I won't go there if you won't. I'm still friends with Jim Pinkoski.

[Gregory Matthews]

O. K. This forum, and others have probably discussed RW enough anyway.