Editor, As a former N.A.S.A. Astrophysicist who did the spectroscopy for the Hubbell's predecessor, the Copernicus OAO-2, I want to say that most Astrophysicists are indeed atheists but most are not "Secular Humanists" and most very much admire the good work that mainstream Christian churches have done in teaching morality to average people. I was surronded by Astrophysicists from 1967 to 1978 and during that period the ONLY one I ever met who had any S.H. tendencies was from England. Most Astrophysicists tend to be very strait-laced people who grew up having to deal with a majority of others their age who were much too obnoxious, cruel, stupid, and peer-conforming for them to care about. Thus the tendency towards pro-moralism and anti-humanism. The general belief among Astrophysicists is that you can't teach a dog to behave using "reason and logic", you have to do it with a rolled-up newspaper. Likewise, the higher a man's I.Q. the less he needs religious fear of a supernatural being to behave while the lower the I.Q. the more he needs it. Unlike most Secular Humanists I was not a white-male spoiled-brat brought up in a sheltered middle-class suburban or small town environment. I grew up along the East River in New York City. It was like a laboritory because I saw for myself how the people brought up in churches were harmless while the ones who were not were horribly reptilian. At N.A.S.A. the Astrophysicists were atheists but as moral as the True Christians. One can NOT prove anything with the "reason and logic" that SHs are always promoting. Because even they are still just words and thus prone to false-starting-premises and lies-of-omission. One must STILL run a laboratory experiment to prove something in the REAL world. One must also prove it mathematically. THIS IS WHY MOST S.H.s ARE NOT HARD-SCIENTISTS ( Physics, Math, Chemistry). They are great debaters as they know all the tricks of lies of omission and false premises but usually poor mathematicians. But any great debater can take either side in an argument and still win. You can't do that with the REAL world, however. When I did some work that was published in the Astrophysical Journal it was easy for me to explain the 'logic and reason' of it. But proving it to six decimal places was difficult. And when I had to get up on a stage in front of an auditorium full of "rocket scientists" can you imagine what would have happened if I had said, "I am not going to prove this by actual real-world experimentation and by showing the balanced equations which present what's going on in the experiment. Instead I am going to prove this verbally by 'reason and logic'.( i.e. blathering)" I WOULD HAVE BEEN LAUGHED OFF THE STAGE!! Incidentally, neither "Relativity" nor "Evolution" has ever been proven and every REAL scientist knows it. When they are you will now it because the guys who succeed will be very famous and will win Nobel Prizes. You will know their names. Yes, most scientists "believe" in both but they also know that "to believe" is a subset of "to not know for sure". (funny how some S.H.s use as so-called 'proof' for Evolution the fact that "most scientists believe in it" while some of these same people do NOT believe in Relativity even though "most scientists believe in it" as well. Probably because one can use the THEORY of Evolution to attack Christianity, but not Relativity.) When something is actually 'proven' the scientist must follow the rules. He must present his findings in the scientific journal of his field along with the complete details of his experiment and all of his math so that every other scientist can duplicate the experiment and see for himself. Nothing is taken on say-so, no matter how 'reasonable' and 'logical' it sounds. Even then there remains a long drawn-out procedure of board meetings, and international get-togethers of thousands of scientists, and challenges, and grillings of the 'discoverer' before the "proof" is accepted. And even then Nobels have been won by people who, years later, disproved a "proof" by finding a flaw in it. Secular Humanists think they're smart because they can argue with Fundamentalists. When I was 27 I had to defend my work against the grilling of a dozen older "rocket scientists" and nuclear physicists. By definition the average person has an IQ between 90 and 110 and I'd guess that the average S.H. has one between 110 and 140. But you have to be a whole lot better than that to be a Physicist. Humanists tend to "use" science (or at least what they read about it) in order to fight Fundamentalists, but scientists "do" science. Incidentally, my fellow Astrophysics roommate was much smarter than any person I have ever met in this town and he was a practicing Christian. As for me, I know that my old neighborhood by the Brooklyn docks would have been a total hell if not for the Catholic Church scaring the louts into line. I've yet to see any Humanist Centers in dangerous neighborhoods trying to teach the animals decency via 'reason and logic". The punks in NYC had no fear of cops as it was a macho thing but they'd obey a priest. As with Astrophysics I had to "LIVE" these things, not be an armchair philosopher in a safe area. (Any philosophy, no mater which it is, that is mostly adhered to by white-males who grew up sheltered middle-class is obviously based upon false conceptions of the real world.) I have also been in rooms full of SHs and in those of scientists. The Humanists smugly sit around and tell each other how smart they are, never thinking of checking their premises which they seem to accept on faith. But Astrophysicists are constantly worried about "premises" as they are built before "reason and logic" are extended from them. Astrophysicists constantly ask, "How do I know that?". NOTHING may be taken as a "given". Even the very, very few real scientists who don't believe in Relativity admire Einstein for having the guts to challenge the "given" premise that time moves at the same rate everywhere in the universe and at any object's speed. How do we "know" that, one way or the other,without proof? I think I conform to most Astrophysicists when I say that anyone who has an IQ below, say, 140 SHOULD be brought up in mainstream-religious moral teaching while those above that number usually don't need it. I also think it's NO coincidence that people not brought up in traditional religion search for some type of fanaticism to promote as a religion. Thus we get UFO- believers, big-foot supporters, Mother-Earth worshippers, conspiracy theorists, safety-nazis, Big Government supporters, mankind-worshippers etcetera. Secular Humanists are to Atheism what Fundamentalists are to Theists. Both are the extremist/fanatic ones of their side constantly preaching and trying to convert othere. Both preach, preach, preach. Mainstream Theists and mainstream Atheists rarely do so. It is called "PROJECTION". It means that when a man can't face his own flaw his unconscious mind keeps seeing that flaw in others. Please note that it is NOT Rocket Scientists, Nuclear Physicists, or Brain Surgeons who are so upset that average people believe in "God". It is "Secular Humanists" (and many MENSA people as Mensa is like a cliub for seven foot Black men who failed at basketball.) You show me someone who is hysterical about others believing in supernatural beings and I'll show you someone who had a lot of potential but who failed to reach the high goals he originally hoped to achieve. Back in the Astrophysics Department we started with 300 people competing for three degrees. It was no coincidence that the 297 who didn't make it became hysterical atheists. It was something their minds needed to compensate for what happened to them. Finally, there is also NO scientific proof whatsoever that the only two choices are Creationism or Evolution. Anyone who gets caught in the "choice of two only" trap only shows his own lack of scientific reasoning and mathematical and experimental procedures.. Other choices may appear in the future. Years ago the ides of "Biblical stellar creation" had one opponent; "steady state". Then atheists said, "Ooops, maybe not steady state. Maybe something else." A truly intelligent person keeps his mind open and realizes that he does not "know" something until he has proven it for himself. And "proof' means physically and mathematically, not rhetorically. I "know" the distances between Earth and the planets because I actaully measured them myself in professional observatories. A secular Humanist "believes" the distances because he read them in a book and takes our writings on "faith". "Skeptics" are skeptical about "God", but give a guy a degree and let the media proclaim him an 'expert" and skeptics are quick to believe him and demand others believe him. Scientists know that "to believe" is a subset of "to not know" and they don't hysterically fight for things they believe in but don' know for sure. (under construction 10-20-98, not proofread) And then there's Carl Sagan. WHAT A JERK! Were there ever any evidence of media bias it was the creation and promotion of he. When the media started pushing this jerk the Arab/Israeli War was going on and this joke was going on within Astrophysics Departments: " Moses searched the deserts for 40 years and brought the Jewish people to the only place in the Middle East without any oil. The National media searched Astro departments for 40 years until they found the only Liberal Secular Humanist Jewish Astronomer". That man in NO way represented the opinions of normal Astrophysicists. It was a deliberately BIASED attemot of the media to portray Astrophysicists as Secular Humanists which they are NOT! Why an Astrophysicist would lower himself into a philosophy filled with people with lesser intelligence is beyond me unless he likes being a big fish in a little pool. Or,in the case of Sagan, to get rich and famous. He was also a second-rate Astrophysicist but the general public was led to believe he was one of the better ones. You will also notice that Carl Sagan, like most Secular Humanists, demanded PROOF of Fundamentalists of their beliefs. Yet none of these S.H.s ever demand 'proof" from Liberals for such nonsense as Hetero-Aids, Nuclear Winter, or Global Warming. They and Sagan took them quickly as gospel. Back in the NASA Space Science Building the Chairman would lead us all in laughter against these things.(Of course as soon as the revered Sagan got rich and famous he took his wife who stood by him when he was noone and dumped her for a young chippie) (And the movie "Contact" was so Politically-Correct in its casting it made me ill. Astrophysics is over 90% white male but in the movie everyone other than that was in charge. It should follow the real ratios no matter what) 2-1-99 ..... ..... ..... .....


555555555yyyyyyyyy