This just in: Bible proves Einstein wrong
The left-wing rabble-rouser, anti-truth conspirator, and Bible-unbeliever at his home in Princeton, NJ in 1950. Only a liberal agitator would wear shoes like that
Friends, I had to create a new category, weirdness, for this one.
I really love it when people of some prominence say things without thinking about it first. In this case it is Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis, founder of Conservapedia, and sayer of many silly things. (If you don’t know what Conservapedia is, click here and spend and hour poking around. There are no words to adequately describe it.) Lots of people have said lots of dumb things, but this one, unearthed at Talking Points Memo by my ever-alert brother-in-law Keith, beats the life out of all its competitors.
I will share a few quotes.
The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.[1]
I will handle the footnote in a moment. First, I don’t know what “mathematical system that allows no exceptions” means. But if I may venture a guess, it means that relativity is “expressed in mathematics.” So was Newton’s physics, but exceptions were found. Hence Albert’s fine work. This is how science operates. So I really have no idea what “allows no exceptions” is supposed to mean. Second, the name relativity is misleading and everyone who learns the subject properly knows it. Einstein never liked the name, because the one single thing that Einstein’s relativity is founded on is the invariance of (1) the laws of physics and therefore (2) the speed of light. That is, physical laws are absolute and c is absolute. Time and space may be relative, but only in such a way that c, the speed of light, is always 3.0×10^5 km/s in a vacuum. I could go on to the “promoted by liberals” thing, but why? It’s really too easy.
The footnote to the last quoted sentence above reads,
[1] See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson’s book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by Barack Obama. Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold.
This bears repeating: Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible. The mind boggles.
Most interestingly, Schlafly points to the Bible as a reason that Einstein’s theory must be wrong. In particular, he mentions the so-called “action-at-a-distance” performed by Jesus and described in John 4.46-54. [Note: action-at-a-distance, also known to physics persons as nonlocality, describes a situation in which an event causes something to happen instantaneously at a different location. Put another way, it requires that information travel infinitely fast and thus move (way) faster than light. Not allowed, so sorry, says the good Professor.]
Anyway, relativity can’t be true because the Bible says so, says Schlafly. Here’s the triumphant passage, John 4.46-54 (NIV).
Once more [Jesus] visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum.When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.”Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.” The royal official said, “Sir, come down before my child dies.” Jesus replied, “You may go. Your son will live.” The man took Jesus at his word and departed. While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, “The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour.” Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live” (pw’s italics). So he and all his household believed. This was the second miraculous sign that Jesus performed, having come from Judea to Galilee.
Using this passage to disprove relativity is so bizarre that I actually wonder about Schafly’s mental health. It even stirs pity in my soul. I will not continue punching holes in this because I respect the intelligence of my readers. It is never attractive or interesting when one takes a straw man seriously. Instead I would like to simply sit back in wonder at the things people can believe in complete seriousness. Like Fred Phelps, who really believes that God hates homosexuals and dead soldiers and victims of disasters. Or pastors that really believe that Jesus wants us to drive Bentleys. Or terrorists who really believe that Jesus hates everyone but them and will kill to prove it. Good Lord! And these are just “Christian” examples. Again, I could go on, but why?
It’s a weird world we’re living in, friends. Grab a Coke and some popcorn, sit back, and watch the show. That’s about all we can do sometimes. It’s basically a tragedy, but it can be pretty funny at times too — just wait for the moment Schlafly figures out that Einstein was Jewish.
There are 9 Comments to "This just in: Bible proves Einstein wrong"
I shall restrict myself to two comments only, because it’s late and I’d rather read myself to sleep while listening to k.d. lang.
First, this seems to me to be one of those examples of someone (Andy, not you) arguing against what they think someone is up to, rather than actually listening to or studying the person. I often find myself across the metaphorical table from someone who is vigorously opposing something I did not actually claim, but that s/he assumed I would claim. I can only say, Grr.
And finally, as you said in a recent post: this guy isn’t just not right, he isn’t even wrong.
Well, it is true that Einstein’s relativity is strongly promoted by liberals. I’m a liberal and I strongly promote both Special and General Relativity. Heck, I’ve even been known to TEACH those subjects to poor, innocent college students. That just shows you how nefarious liberals like me really are…
I’m so glad you wrote this post, because I had never seen Conservapedia before. Can one laugh and cry at the same time? That’s what I want to do when I read Conservapedia. I believe that most conservatives are reasonable people with whom I just happen to disagree on certain points. I think (and hope) that they would be embarrassed by Conservapedia, just as I am embarrassed by some of the crazy and stupid things that some liberals write.
The front page of Conservapedia had a quick rejoinder to the Talking Points Memo article that you cite. It came in the form of a table showing “Counterexamples to the Bible: 0, Counterexamples to Evolution: 60, IQ of atheists: 0 divided by 60.” I mean you just can’t make a stronger case that relativity is a liberal plot than that!
Anyway, I decided to check out the Counterexamples to the Bible link. I was sort of just expecting to find a blank page, since they claimed there were no such counterexamples (perhaps they read a different version of the Bible than I do?). Instead I found lists of counterexamples for things a Conservapedia contributor doesn’t like, including the “Old Earth.” Here they are:
1. The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate[2] that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems, causing Earth and the moon to be as they are today.
2. Spiral galaxies appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of dark matter can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
3. The planetary orbits in the solar system – including Earth’s – are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.[3][4]
4. At least one spiral galaxy spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.[5]
5. The primary reaction in the Sun is the fusing of hydrogen to make helium, but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.[Citation Needed]
I could nit-pick this list to death (do spiral galaxies have tails? I thought they had spiral arms…). Or discourse on Poincare’s proof that the orbits of the major solar system bodies are stable over enormously long periods of time, in spite of the fact that the solar system as a whole is unstable (meaning asteroids and comets sometimes leave the system). But I want to focus on the “young spiral galaxies.” In what sense can a spiral galaxy at a distance of, say, several hundred million light years be considered “young.” It pretty much has to have been around several hundred million years ago, or else its light would not have had time to reach us. Because we know that light always travels at 300,000 km/s through empty space. OH WAIT! I forgot that relativity is just a liberal conspiracy, so I guess my argument isn’t valid after all….
I just can’t resist one more poke. Schlafly provides a list of 24 counterexamples to relativity (he seems not to distinguish the Special theory from the General). He claims that “any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.” Let’s take a look at # 6:
“The observed lack of curvature in overall space.[4]”
Here’s the footnote:
“If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.”
That’s deep. If space were curved then it would not be flat (note Schlafly doesn’t distinguish between space and spacetime). I assume what he really means is that if space were curved then it would not be LOCALLY flat (which it pretty much is, except for minor bumps due to the presence of stars, etc.).
Here is a similar counterexample to another well-known theory (which is probably strongly promoted by liberals):
If the Earth were really approximately spherical, then it would not be LOCALLY flat (which it pretty much is, except for minor bumps due to the presence of mountains, etc.).
I think Schlafly should start a new list of counterexamples to the “Round Earth” theory. (I say this with some fear that this list is already on Conservapedia.)
riddle me this. if the folks at Conservapedia are trying to use the Bible to disprove relativity, how will this be affected when they get around to rewriting the Bible?
C’mon Paul, this is shooting fish in a barrel. Citing Schlafly and Phelps as examples of conservatism is akin to citing, say, Emmett Brown as an example of scientific discovery.
Yeah, Dan, I know that. I didn’t really shoot, is the thing. I explicitly resisted tearing up the straw man because that’s just, well, not good form. My point has nothing to do with conservatism but with people who are so out of touch that it’s bizarre. I assure you that conservatism is not a target of mine. I have a great deal of respect for a large number of conservatives, starting with my own father and including you. I mentioned Phelps because he’s totally crackers, not because he’s conservative. I could just as well have gone after PETA or Earth First!, but they don’t have agendas cloaked in religious garb.
Fair enough. This is great fun. I’m enjoying the articles quite a bit, even if we don’t always agree!
Thanks. Good to hear you say so, Dan. You may want to check out my newest post in which I praise the virtues of being in community with those who see the world differently than you. You are exactly one of those dear friends I would never know if I were to stay away from the church. Thanks for reading. Your being “present” on this site helps to keep me honest!
Paul, you’re always honest. That’s why I love you. It’s what made me want to be your friend to begin with. I’ll never forget hearing you talk about your fear of Jesus, and not the “FEAR OF GOD” that’s preached so often. You were talking about the real fear of what being a disciple meant personally. I’ve told you before, that was the single most honest thing I had ever heard said in a church. It may have been that moment that I knew we were home. I can’t begin to tell you how saddened I am that that place is neither of our homes anymore.
If I were to be completely honest, my faith is sometimes born of fear. Not always, but more than I’d like to admit. I’m trying to get back to a place where that isn’t so.
You are a dear friend and we miss you both very much.