Latest post in my blog on popular science:
Science or pseudoscience?
https://populscience.blogspot.com/2023/03/science-or-pseudoscience.html
Regards,
Manuel, you wrote:
"It is curious that Sagan ended his analysis of Velikovsky’s theories as follows:
If we are forced to choose - and strictly we are not - is not the evidence for the God of Moses, Jesus or Muhammad better than the evidence for Velikovsky’s comet?
I’m afraid that I don’t understand this: how does the Bible contradict what Velikovsky wrote? And as a footnote: I was once interpreting for a delegation headed by the White House Science Advisor, Frank Press (a long time ago), and asked him about Velikovsky. He replied that Velikovsky was a pain in the a…I asked, “why?”. He replied, “because it’s very hard to disprove what he says” (:-).
Dimitry
“Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. Love will last forever.” (1 Corinthians 13: 4-8)
Sagan meant this: Among two explanations of the same facts (one religious, based on miracles, and one naturalistic, using planet Venus as a deus ex machina) he considers the first better. He also adds that he must not choose between them, as there are other explanations: That those facts never happened; or that they happened, but were not miracles. For instance: according to a study published in a scientific magazine around that time, the crossing of the sea could have been natural if a mirage made the “sea” appear to separate while the Israelite went through… The mana could have been an outstanding crop of edible flowers… and so on.
Regards,