I’ve compiled a list of scientific errors/misunderstandings from the ‘Everything is Spiritual’ talk on 7/7/06, based on the notes that I took. I want to emphasize that I have the utmost respect for Rob and what he does. At the same time, I feel strongly about accuracy and the implications of a single voice disseminating information without critique. I think that this is inline with the spirit of his book Velvet Elvis too. So, I’m saying this to be constructive!
Factual Errors:
Hyper dense material
Neutron stars are 10-20km in diameter. They don’t fit in a spoon – I think what he’s referring to is that a spoonful of neutron star material would weigh more than a billion tons. That’d take quite a spoon.
Speed of light
The speed of light is generally given as 3*10^8 m/s. This translates to 670 million mph, not 670 thousand mph as stated. Just missing a few zeros, but needlessly sloppy.
Einstein vs. Newton
This is not really a case of Einstein saying Newton was all wrong – Einstein extended Newton. Pretty much any machine on earth is based on Newtonian physics – Einstein added a correction factor for very high speeds, but the really amazing thing is that the Newtonian model is so simple and works so well.
Fine-tuning in the universe
This is the subject of much debate. It’s not an entirely opened-and-shut case. Actually, it’s not open-and-shut at all.
Sub-atomic particles
This was the one of the most error-prone portions of the talk. A basic primer on sub-atomic particles is needed. What is known as the Standard Model has been the accepted theory in physics for the last 30 years or so. In a nutshell, there are two basic type of fundamental particles: quarks and leptons. Quarks combine to form the more familiar protons and neutrons, which in turn combine with electrons (a type of lepton) to make atoms. Most of the fundamental subatomic particles that have been identified do not exist on earth, but must be created in high-energy particle accelerators.
Also, electrons don’t orbit the nucleus of an atom in the way the planets orbit the sun. That’s one way to look at it, but it’s important to note that this does not represent what is really happening.
As a side note, I wonder where the heck he got some of what he said?
Quantum Entanglement
Rob mentioned the “Bell theorem” and talked about quantum entanglement. He stated at the end of this discussion that quantum entanglement is responsible for the “Butterfly Effect”. This is completely wrong. The Butterfly Effect is a lay-man’s description of a characteristic of complex systems that comes out of chaos theory. The idea behind this is that when systems are sufficiently complex, the behavior of the system can’t be predicted very far into the future (like the weather). The reason is that certain systems are very sensitive to initial conditions <a href=”the state the system started in). A small change in the initial state can result in a very large change as the system evolves. Hence, the idea of a butterfly flapping its wings in China, changing the air pressure around that butterfly, and a thunderstorm developing two weeks later in Oklahoma as a result.
String Theory
This is not as much a factual error, as one of wrong impression. Rob presents string theory as the next big thing physicists are doing, but this is not true. Currently, the theory can’t make any predictions that are testable, and thus is considered by many to be more of a mathematical formalism, rather than a theory per se.
Finally
Note that I’ve used Wikipedia) as the source of my references, but I intend it as an introduction/overview, not a definitive text.
15 Comments
I found what you had to say interesting. I personally was lost through Rob’s talk, so he could have told me that people have actually been discovered on Mars and I probably would have bought it, at least that night. Thanks for addressing the issue of scientific accuracy. If he bases his entire presentation on those facts, then he should be as accurate as possible. You never know when you’ll have PhDs sitting in your audience.
B~
I was sitting next to my wife who has her degree in Biology from a private Christian University. She was dissecting his arguments. Setting there It was very neat but without you or her I might have regurgitated some misinformation. Thanks for the good work.
interesting…but irrelevant.
I am pleasantly surprised to see that people actually have read this. Brian, I disagree with you that what I wrote was irrelevant. I think that Ray’s comment illustrates why. Say you are all excited by what Rob said, and you’re telling someone else. If you repeat one of the more inaccurate things that he said (and they know what it should be) you look like an idiot and your message loses its impact. Maybe 9 of 10 people won’t know, but it wouldn’t have been all that hard for Rob to get this stuff right.
Ray, if you check back here, I’d be curious to know what your wife said.
I was at the Sacramento event too – and I also found much of what he said amazing. I did wonder where he got some of his material as I had never heard some of it before. I didn’t take notes though, so I have a hard time remembering the specific things asserted as fact vs. the gist of his arguments (which overall were very cool). One thing in particular struck me. He talked about a particular type of subatomic particle that retained its “polarity” even after being split in half and separated across a great distance (as an example of contra-Newtonian principles). I would really like to find out more about that experiment! I did hear a rumor that one of the talks (which one I don’t know) was recorded and will be released. So, maybe I’ll be able to re-listen to his talk and take notes this time!
Hi Tim, thanks for commenting! In my post above, under ‘quantum entanglement’ I linked to an article on Wikipedia that describes what you are interested in.
Eric,
I was at a different show. I also noted a couple of mistakes that seemed to me to be misstatements more than misunderstandings. I don’t recall this many weeks later the specific onces I noticed then. But they were similar to the speed of light reference. I didn’t think he was trying to rewrite physics so much as that he just jumbled it. Same with the neutron star reference, as the teaspoon illustration is often connected with the topic. When I saw him, he didn’t make that statement. I don’t think so anyway. I happened to attend the show that was filmed for a DVD release. So I guess I’ll have a chance to check what he said at some point.
On the quantum entanglement, I think the butterfly effect is a stretch, but I agree with him that it sheds some interesting light on our ideas of distance. And string theory may not play much role in lab physics but it is certianly garnered a ton of press and attention in popular science magazines. They have sold it as the TOE in waiting. So I don’t think he’s really wrong to characterize it that way, especially not when speaking to a general audience.
Finally, on the anthropic coincidences. This is certainly contentious, mostly I suspect because it lends itself to use in a message like Rob’s. The alternative explanations I’ve read (such as the “landscape” theory of possible universes) are every bit as speculative. If he’s chosen to present the interpretation most favorable to theism…well, he is a pastor. I don’t really see that as an error.
Rob did make some misatkes and I think it’s fair to call him on them. As you said, I think questions are in the Rob Bell teaching spirit. Still, my sense after the show was that most of the errors were fairly trivial misstatements. Correcting them would only improve the overall impact of his argument, not overturn it in most cases.
Hi John,
Thanks for your comments. I completely agree with your conclusions – I agree with where he was going, but I think he could have been more convincing by being more accurate. Though I tend to think some of the errors more more fundamental misunderstandings than just jumbling (sub-atomic particles and quantum entanglement especially) I agree that his argument was not premised on those misunderstandings.
My issue, as I discussed in the previous post to this, is that here he got some basic facts wrong on some issues that I happen to know something about. In his teachings he relies often on his historical research and makes some pretty broad claims about “the rabbis said this or that.” I’m essentially taking him at face value on all this. How do I know he hasn’t ‘jumbled’ some of the history or theology? Again, I generally agree with most of what he teaches, but I place a lot of trust in his skills of research and filtering information.
How hard is it to sit down for an hour with a physics grad student (there’s got to be at least one in his 10000 members) and get the physics right? And what other corners has he cut in what he’s researching? I hope none, but I think it’s fair to ask the question.
hey, have you e-mailed rob with any of these questions. just wondering what the response would be like. I mean if he got facts wrong, and they change the conclusions then the dvd won’t do any good, but if his conlusions are still accurate just some of the proof he used is jumbled it should at least be noted on the dvd. dont really know anything about sience but found this article really interesting and def props for doing what you are doing. i mean read the back of velvit elvis, he wants people to not just swallow what he says, so if he says something wrong i think he should know. thanks – tyler
Hi Tyler, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I haven’t tried to send Rob any of my comments, but maybe I will. I personally don’t think that the errors change the conclusions. I do think that the errors take away from the potency of the argument though. If the purpose is just to make Christians feel good about themselves, then it doesn’t really matter. If the purpose is to engage skeptics, then I think it does, because factual errors could very well be an insurmountable stumbling block for some.
Hi Eric, I’ve just stumbled upon your site as I was Googling “Everything is Spiritual DVD.”
I love your commentary here – not just because of what you said, but how you said it. As a “member” of the postmodern/emergent/emergING/nontraditional/(whatever else labels you want to insert here) movement, I think I’m more used to stumbling across people calling Rob Bell (or those of a similar mindset) a heretic or something. But you’ve added value by being a contributor rather than a critic. I really appreciate a factual look at some of the things he said that isn’t charged with negative rhetoric. I think you’ve succeeded in adding to the discussion – creating discourse but not discord.
I find myself feeling (similar to what someone said in one of the comments) that the conclusions he arrived at don’t change even if some of the specific details were jumbled. When I saw Rob in St. Louis, I was encouraged just to be reminded of how big and complex the universe is. I think I left the evening with a general sense of awe, not because I understood the intricacies of string theory, but because my eyes were reopened to the fascinating scale of creation. That doesn’t excuse factual misinformation, but taken as a bigger picture I thought the general meaning was well communicated.
Now, on to peruse the rest of your site!
Hi Jarrett – thanks for your comments. I was very much hoping that people would not take what I wrote as a slam, but rather as an effort to add to the discussion, as you said.
I agree with you and others that it doesn’t matter a whole lot to the majority of people. But I was reading on your site a little bit, and ran across the Bell Curve post you did. I very much agree with that sentiment – the people at the edge of the curve matter too. I think though that you and I are in the middle of a different curve – one of exposure, experience, ‘comfortableness’ with the language and the ideas. And I fear that the people able to see that the conclusions don’t really change, even if the facts are wrong, are not the marginal ones.
My site’s a little very eclectic, no telling what you’ll find here! Please comment on anything else the piques your curiosity.
The release of the DVD of the event is schedule for November ‘07.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] I (Eric) have posted my own review in two parts: Impressions of Everything is Spiritual and Fact-checking Everything is Spiritual. Also, I’ve posted a reassembled photo of the whiteboard Rob used here. « [...]