A major problem with
Velikovsky is that the catastrophic events he describes tend to be
brief and poorly defined, and lost in lengthy passages about cultural
myths which support his theories of catastrophes. As a result, the
exact pattern of events he described is unclear and ambiguous; as
Morrison (2001) indicated, this "…vagueness and lack of quantitative
reasoning" (p. 69) produces a great deal of frustration when one
attempts to make sense of his various theories.
What is quite clear
however is that the genesis of his theories was the claimed ejection by
Jupiter of the proto-planet Venus with such force that it escaped the
gravity of Jupiter to commence travelling in space as a huge comet and
that, in the course of its erratic travels throughout the solar system,
it precipitated events which formed the basis for the marvelous
biblical events described in Exodus, Joshua and 2 Kings.
As an advocate of
Catastrophism and natural theology Velikovsky wanted to harmonize the
irregular behaviour of this imaginary comet with these biblical events
but had to invent absurd scenarios. If Velikovsky is to be believed
this was no ordinary comet, but one with miraculous abilities. Not only
did it appear and intervene at critical moments to assist the
Israelites, causing death and destruction to their enemies, even
causing worldwide cataclysms which destroyed most of humanity, but it
never harmed the Israelites! This saga is so incredible it could only
have been created by Velikovsky's overwhelming need to provide a
natural theological explanation for many of the biblical myths. In
doing so he created a number of theories about the nature and behaviour
of comets which have now been revealed as false Thus he claimed that: -.
•
Some comets originated in other star systems and may be the
results of collisions between two stars creating a nova, (Velikovsky,
1972, p. 388);
•
Comets are created by the collision of planets (p. 374) and, "…smaller
comets were born in contacts between Venus and Mars…" (p. 379).
There is now a much better understanding of the composition of comets,
(Keller, Britt, Buratti, and Thomas, 2005) and, their origins and
relationship to the trans-Neptunian Oort and Kuiper belts, (Jewitt and
Luu, 1993).
Comets are
essentially debris left over from the formation of the solar system,
pieces of rock, ranging in size from small rocks up to many kilometers
in size, surrounded by dust, gas and ice. Although they originally
orbited the sun in the distant parts of the solar system, some were
forced from their original paths, probably by collisions with other
bodies, into orbits which now bring them in close to the sun. There are
two types of comets, the first, long-period comets, (>200 years),
are thought to originate in the Oort cloud while the short-period
comets, (<200 years), appear to come from the trans-Neptunian Keiper
Belt, (Huebner, 2008, p. 6);
•
Before approaching Earth, having passed close to the sun, the
comet was "…in a state of candescence" (p. 91).
However, if it had been
ejected from Jupiter it would already have been an incandescent mass,
which would have taken hundreds of thousands of years to cool. If, on
the other hand, it had already cooled, like all normal comets, it would
have had a cool rocky nucleus and would not have been incandescent.
While the nuclei of comets do become hot as they approach the sun, they
never reach a temperature high enough to become incandescent; they also
lose this heat very quickly as they move away from the sun. For
example, Becklin and Westphal (1966) measured the temperature of the
comet Ikeya-Seki when it was 72 million kilometers from the sun at -
400 C. and, although the temperature reached 649 C. when it was 32
million kilometers from the sun, on its return journey it again quickly
dropped to - 400 C.;
•
"The tails of comets are composed mainly of carbon and hydrogen gases"
(Velikovsky (1972, p. 69) and that these are highly flammable when they
come into contact with oxygen atmospheres. (p. 69).
In fact comet tails are
composed of non-flammable dust and ionized particles. The glowing
appearance of a comet in the sky is due to the solar radiation heating
their inner core releasing a thin trail of gases, which, along with the
dust they trail, is illuminated by the ionization effect of solar
radiation, not because they become incandescent;
•
The comet had a massive atmosphere, which fell into Earth's
atmosphere (p. 92). However comets do not have an atmosphere per se,
their nuclei are surrounded by only a nebulous collection of dust and
gases held in place by their very weak gravity;
•
During the cool of the night, carbohydrates precipitated from the
comet and fell to Earth with the morning dew to form manna (Exodus
15:14-17).
If the surface
temperature of the Earth was hot enough to evaporate the oceans, there
could hardly have been morning dew!
•
In a reference to Lexell's Comet he claimed that, "…a comet,
encountering a planet, can become entangled and drawn away from its own
path," (p. 92; 192). He claimed Lexell's Comet had become
"entangled" in this way, temporarily "captured" by Jupiter in 1767, and
had then managed to successfully free itself in 1779.
However, comets
do not become captured and then free themselves at a later date. If
they pass too close to a planet they can either be drawn into the
planet (as occurred with Shoemaker-Levy 9 in 1994), or else, have their
orbits changed by the gravitational forces of the planet. According to
Leverington (2003) this is what happened to Lexell's Comet in 1767
when, "…Jupiter had radically changed its orbit…" (p. 193).
Furthermore Lexell's Comet was never captured by Jupiter and held from
1767 until 1779, since it was observed passing the Earth in 1770.
•
Venus has an abnormally high surface temperature, 750° K.,
(476 °C; 890 °F. — Lewis, 2004, p. 526).
It is now known that
the planet itself is not hot. The extreme temperature is due to its
dense 96% carbon dioxide atmosphere (Seeds and Backman, 2007, p. 457),
which traps 75% of the light reaching the surface, creating a massive
greenhouse effect. (Karttunen et. al, 2003, p. 154);
•
The almost "uniform temperature" on both the day and night sides
of Venus was because, "The daily rotation of the planet Venus is
very rapid" (p. 372). Velikovsky denied scientists who, at that
time, claimed Venus rotated very slowly, once every 225 days, (a period
equal to its orbit around the sun), claiming "…it is difficult to
see how the high temperature of the rotating layer of the night side
could be maintained." (p. 372)
However, it is now
known that Venus rotates once every 243 Earth days. (Kuhn &
Koupelis, 2004, p. 247) and the heat of the night side is due to the
extreme greenhouse effect;
•
Venus "…must be surrounded by a very extensive envelope of
hydrocarbon (petroleum)" (p. 6; 8) and so, its atmosphere, "…must
be rich in petroleum gasses." (p. 370)
However it is
now known the atmosphere is rich in Carbon Dioxide, (Fegley, 2005, p.
488);
•
Jupiter emitted radio signals, (p. 6).
These are now
known to be due to the interaction of the moon Io forming plasma in
Jupiter's equatorial plane, and also because Jupiter produces strong
radio waves from its polar regions.
It is now known that
major catastrophes have shaped the development of the Earth. These
include at least five extinction-level events, (E.L.E.), during the
past 540 million years with the last one, the Cretaceous-Tertiary event
65.5 million years ago. Velikovsky's claims that the last worldwide
catastrophe occurred 2,800 - 3,500 years ago is disputed by all
reputable Geologists, for there is no evidence of the cataclysms he
described.
To support his dramatic
claims Velikovsky studied the records of many ancient cultures,
including the Amerindian, Assyrian, Aztec, Chinese and Indians, looking
for evidence of cosmic catastrophes. While most scholars considered
such stories to be mere myths, Velikovsky was convinced they were
eyewitness reports and so reliable that they were to be believed above
any modern scientific theories with which they might conflict. Despite
this, he himself was selective in his interpretation of these ancient
texts for, in quoting the Midrashim claim that the waters of the sea
were raised to a height of "sixteen hundred miles" he says this was not
meant to be a literal figure but merely to indicate that, "…the heap
of water was tremendous." (p. 87).
However, what is often
overlooked is that the existence of these myths is in itself proof that
such events could never have occurred! Velikovsky gave a vivid
description of how the entire surface of the Earth was ripped apart,
uprooted and thrown around, with huge chasms opening up to expose
molten magna which flooded the world, volcanoes erupted and the oceans
swept across the continents in tsunamis kilometers high, huge meteors
smashed into the Earth leaving a world totally devastated, and all that
was left was, "…a world enshrouded in an atmosphere filled with
smoke and vapor." (Velikovsky, 1972, p. 111) Such a description
clearly suggests that the Earth must have been totally destroyed and no
one could have survived – who then could have written the myths which
Velikovsky relied upon as evidence of his great cataclysms?
If a few humans had
survived, they would have emerged from the ruins to a devastated world
and been forced to rebuild human civilization from the beginning. Yet
there is no evidence of this worldwide destruction or of humans having
to make a new start; instead, we find an unbroken sequence of
historical development. Even the Bible, which Velikovsky relies upon as
the basis of his theories, describes how, when Moses led his people
into Canaan, the land was flowing with milk and honey (Numbers 13:27);
no mention of a ruined landscape! Rather than only a few survivors, the
land was described as inhabited by numerous peoples, "Hittites…Hivites…Perizzites…Girgashites…Amorites…Jebusites."
(Joshua 3:10). There were many cities including Jericho, Ai, Gibeon,
Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, Eglon, Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth,
and Kirjathjearim; so, how could humankind have recovered so quickly
after a worldwide catastrophe as that described by Velikovsky?
His admission that his
theories were based upon his own "…reconstruction of ancient
history" (Velikovsky, 1972, p. 64 and 78) is particularly
pertinent; it appears he not only reconstructed ancient history but
also astronomy and astrophysics to fit his theories.
Sadly, his efforts in
devising such an elaborate explanation for the extraordinary events in
the Bible were completely wasted, for although he claimed the biblical
accounts of the wondrous events in Exodus are "historically true" (p.
380), it is now generally accepted that the stories of Moses, the
enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt, and their escape from captivity
across the Red Sea, etc. are folklore. As Robertson (2004) noted, the
Moses story is a variation of the Horus myth (p. 309) while the account
of the Exodus itself is an analogous myth, adapted by the Israelites
from other Middle Eastern sources to demonstrate that, just as pagan
deities had parted the Primal Sea to create the world, so too the god
of the Israelites had split the Red Sea to create a new nation.
(Armstrong, 2005, p. 96)
In describing the
Israelites as "slaves" Velikovsky, (1973), (p. 24) obviously accepted
the biblical account that the Israelites had been enslaved and forced
to build the great monuments in Egypt. This has now been revealed as a
myth for the builders of these great buildings, including the pyramids,
were the Egyptians themselves. Both Ruiz (2001) noted that, in the
villages where the pyramid builders resided, the style of the tombs is
clearly Egyptian. (p. 217), while David (1996) who examined the ancient
town Deit el-Medina, home to the artisans who worked on the tombs in
the Valley of the Kings from circa 1550 – 1080 BCE, (the period
covered by Velikovsky) reported that excavations at various workers'
sites uncovered a great deal of written material which shows these
workers were clearly Egyptians. There is evidence that these were paid
workers, not slaves, for as Rice (1999) indicated, on one occasion
during the 29th year of the reign of Ramses III, (circa 1153 BCE) the
workers went on strike (p. 166) upset because of a shortage of food,
water, clothing and the dark eye makeup, necessary to reduce the glare
of the sun.
Velikovsky made a number
of other unlikely claims, e.g.
•
The Earth attracted the Moon within the memory of human kind, who
also witnessed the "building of the solar system" (Velikovsky, 1942);
•
In the past Saturn and Jupiter had collided and, as the Earth
passed close to Jupiter, it was drowned in hydrogen from Jupiter's
atmosphere
which, as it drifted down through Earth's oxygen rich atmosphere,
became water." (Velikovsky 1942);
•
The behaviour of Earth, Mars, Venus, Moon, and other planets
during their contacts, shows that gravity does not exist the
mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous. (Velikovsky,
1942);
•
"At near distances special law acts in magnetism (also electrical
phenomenon)" (Velikovsky, 1942), which makes both levitation and
perpetual motion possible;
•
Earthquakes are caused by the geological masses readjusting from
their being displaced during the earlier cosmic contacts, (Velikovsky,
1942);
•
Darwin's Theory of Evolution which proposes slow changes in
life-forms is wrong, (Velikovsky, 1942);
•
Dinosaurs became extinct a few thousand years ago. Most died
during the catastrophes, and "…those that survived could not exist
in new conditions, especially because of changed weight of all objects,
and of their large bodies, not capable to move, especially during
gravity." [Sic.] (Velikovsky, 1942);
•
The "Brontosaurus was not a reptile…but a mammal."
(Velikovsky, 1942);
•
There had formerly existed on Earth, a race of giants (Gigants)
who were destroyed by the catastrophes, (Velikovsky, 1942);
•
Erection of ancient structures built with huge stones had only
been possible because such objects had been much lighter before the
cosmic contacts, (Velikovsky, 1942);
•
Noah's Flood had been due to the proto-Saturn becoming a nova,
and ejecting much of its mass into space. (Velikovsky, 1978, p. 249);
• The
planet Mercury was involved in the destruction of the Tower of Babel;
(Velikovsky, 1978, p. 107);
•
Planets revolve, "… on a quite circular orbit…" (Velikovsky,
1972, p. 166), until they are displaced from their original orbits by
comets;
While Velikovsky was an
outstanding scholar, his areas of expertise did not extend to
astrophysics. It appears that, lacking definite scientific evidence, he
simply created his own fanciful ideas and convinced himself of the
existence of an imaginary comet whose actions conveniently coincided
with fictional events in the Old Testament, and even though several of
his conjectures proved to be valid, the assumptions which led to these
conclusions were erroneous. As Gould (1977) commented, "Velikovsky
is neither crank nor charlatan — although to state my opinion and to
quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong." (p.
153).
References:
Armstrong, K.
(2005). A Short History of Myth. Melbourne, Australia: The Text
Publishing Company
Becklin, E. E., and
Westphal, J. A., (1966). Astrophysics. 145, pp. 445–453..
David, R. (1996). The
Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge Publishers.
Fegley, B. (2005).
"Venus" in Meteorites, Comets and Planets, H.D. Holland and
Turekian K.K. editors, Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd. 487-508
Friedlander, M.W. (1995).
At the Fringes of Science, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press
Gould, S.J. (1977).
"Velikovsky in Collision," Natural History, March 1975; from Ever
Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 1977, pp. 153-159.
Gurshtein, A., 1993. "On
the Origin of the Zodiacal Constellations," Vistas in Astronomy
36, pp. 171-190.
Huebner, W.F. (2008).
"Origins of Cometary Material", in, Origin and Early Evolution of
Comet Nuclei, editors Balsiger, H., Altwegg, K., Huebner, W.F.,
Owen, T. and Schilz, T. editors, Philadelphia: Springer Science +
Business Media, 5-25.
Jewitt, D. and Luu, J.
(1993). Discovery of the candidate Kuiper belt object 1992 QB1. Nature
362, 730 - 732 (22 April);
Karttunen, H.,
Kröger, P., Oja, H., Poutanen, M., and Donner, K.J. (2003). Fundamental
Astronomy, 4th edition. New York: Springer-Verlag
Keller, H.U. Britt, D.,
Buratti, B.J. and Thomas, N. (2005). "In situ observations of cometary
nuclei", in, Comets II, editors M. Festou, H. U. Keller, and H.
A. Weaver, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 211–222.
Kuhn, K. F. and Koupelis,
T. (2004). In, Quest of the Universe. Sudbury, Massachusetts:
Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Leverington, D. (2003). Babylon
to Voyager and Beyond: A History of Planetary Astronomy, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, J.S. (2004).
Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System, Burlington,
Massachussets: Academic Press.
Morrison, D. (2001).
Velikovsky at Fifty: Cultures in collision on the fringes of science, Skeptic
9:1, 62-76)
Rice, M. (1999). Who's
Who in Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge.
Robertson, J.M. (2004). Christianity
and Mythology. Whitefish, Montana Kessinger Publishing. LLC.
Ruiz, A. (2001). The
Spirit of Ancient Egypt. New York: Algora Publishing.
Sagan, C. (1979). "Venus
and Dr. Velikovsky" in, Broca's Brain: the Romance of Science,
editor. Carl Sagan, London: Coronet Books, 100-159.
Seeds, M.A. and Backman,
D.E. (2007) The Solar System, Boston: Brooks/Cole Publishers.
Velikovsky, I, (1942).
Affidavit of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, dated 5th December 1942,
http://www.varchive.org/ce/affidavit.htm Retrieved April
2011.
Velikovsky, I. (1972), Worlds
in Collision. New York: Laurel.
Velikovsky, I. (1973). Ages
in Chao, London: Abacus/Sphere Books.
Velikovsky, I. (1978) Ages
in Chaos II, p. 107 1978 Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New
York:
Whiston, W. (1737). A
New Theory of the Earth from Its Original, To the Consummation of All
Things, London: Boyle's Head.
Defending Velikovsky – Half-Heartedly
(Investigator
140, 2011 September)
My first encounter with the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky took place
during the weekend 14/15th March 1964. Wandering down London’s Charing
Cross Road, browsing in bookshops, I stumbled upon a copy of Oedipus
and Akhnaton. The title grabbed me, firstly because I had read
much of Freud and appreciated the central importance of Oedipus to his
‘theories of sexuality’ and secondly, as an active Rationalist, was
also aware of the Egyptian pharaoh whom many believed to be the first
monotheist. It’s a small book which I found an easy read – I
think at a single sitting. To me it proved of interest due to the
author’s familiarity with the relevant languages and what appeared to
me reasonable linguistic-based, logical assumptions suggesting linkages
between the Oedipus of legend and the physical characteristics of the
pharoah Akhenaton.
I was familiar with Freud’s Moses and Monotheism, but hadn’t
remembered much of the detail recapitulated by Velikovsky (who probably
based himself more on parallels suggested by Karl Abrahams – whom I
hadn’t read – than on Freud direct). I had myself observed the
prevalence of the female sphinx in Greece and Tunisia. Velikovsky’s
suggestion of an incestuous relationship between the pharaoh and his
natural mother fitted well with what I already knew of ancient Egyptian
practice and mythology including gods and their human counterparts
(Cleopatra married her brother; Isis and Osiris were man and wife as
well as being brother and sister!)
Remembering Freud had suggested that the name of Moses suggested his
being an Egyptian — add to that tales of captive Jews returning from
their supposed two centuries of Egyptian captivity, the ‘other gods’
Jahveh so vigorously ‘campaigned against’ and the vestigial primitive
sun-god worship ‘logged into’ the Hebrew testaments (and still evident
in any modern Christian church in the ‘halo’, symbol of sun-god Aten —
it seemed Velikovsky may have been providing a service to 20th Century
scholars).
However, when I looked at Velikovsky’s earlier and later work (usefully
summarized by Laurie Eddie in #139) I realized much of his research
supports a need to revise the chronology of the period; according to
Velikovsky, 600 years are ‘out of synch’. Before making
more general remarks, it is important to say Velikovsky was aware that
in the world of science, ‘theories’ must pass stringent testing – preferably
as soon as they are hypothesized and certainly ‘in advance’ of
subsequent theoretical development. In fact, he spent twenty years
corresponding to numerous experts in the field asking their help in
carbon dating particular relics specifically related to his work.
At the eleventh hour, so to speak, such help was indeed promised by
Albert Einstein – who unfortunately promptly died!
Laurie refers to only some of Velikovsky’s early scholarship
years in various localities; first in Moscow, then Montpellier (the
south of France); then medical studies in Edinburgh. Interrupted
by the First World War (he returned to Moscow to study law and ancient
history), later completing his medical studies there, graduating in
1921. He moved to Berlin, where he was a foundation member of a
series of journals (Scripta Academica) around which the future
University of Jerusalem was to arise. His journal editing brought him
into contact with Albert Einstein, who edited the mathematical-physical
volume of the series. Velikovsky practiced medicine for fifteen years
in Jerusalem, then re-trained as a psychoanalyst, practicing in clinics
in Haifa and Tel Aviv. (Working in this field, he was the first
to discover epilepsy could be identified from encephalograms!)
Many might agree with Laurie Eddie when he says, “Velikovsky was an
outstanding scholar...” (a remark with which I half-heartedly agree!).
When Eddie, however, continues by claiming, “lacking definite
scientific evidence, he simply created his own fanciful ideas and
convinced himself of the existence of an imaginary comet whose actions
conveniently coincided with fictional events in the Old Testament ”,
one guesses Laurie may have missed some detailed knowledge about
Velikovsky together with a defining point about ‘science’.
After overviewing William Whiston’s idea of God’s ‘perfectly created’
universe Eddie claims Velikovsky’s theories are “similarly religious
based” — a viewpoint contradicted by the Einstein-Velkovsky
correspondence wherein the former soon accepted as tenable the
hypothesis of global catastrophes and, although originally opposed,
Einstein even became sympathetic to the latter’s hypothesis of the
recent origin of Venus as a planet. (In the Velikovsky-Sapley
letter-exchanges of 1946, when the former offered to submit to crucial
tests before publishing his book, Shapley insisted Velikovsky
reframe his hypothesis vis-a-vis the physical characteristics
of Venus (its ‘high temperature’ and the ‘presence of hydrocarbon
gases’, within a scheme of metaphysical presuppositions. Stapley, of
course, had in mind the dogma of the ‘absolute stability’ of the solar
system; Velikovsky succeeded in winning the argument that there could
be no ‘proof’ of this ‘religious’ postulate!)
In numerous contributions to the Investigator Magazine I
have consistently argued there are two integral aspects of ‘the
scientific process’ – the ‘creation’ of theories from which logical
‘hypotheses’ are tested in a practical way. I have
several times highlighted that many great scientific theories
have originated from ‘dream experiences’ [I have reminded readers of
Otto Loewi being awarded the Nobel Prize (1936) for carrying out his
‘dream experiment’ on neurological chemical transmission. In like
manner, mathematicians Henri Poincaré and Karl Gauss have
separately provided anecdotal evidence concerning their own
‘discoveries’!] I have made the point so frequently that I begin to
bore myself with repeating it again – the ‘origin’ of the theory is
unimportant, even irrelevant. Ancient scriptures or any other
mythology extracted from the traditions and folklore of countless
cultures are equally acceptable possibilities — what makes a theory
‘scientific’ is its ‘testability’ in the terms laid down by the
procedures of today’s ‘science’.
It seems clear Velikovsky fully endorsed this correct ‘scientific’
approach vis-à-vis his own ‘speculations’ — hence his
continued pursuance of Einstein’s critical views of his own work and
his never-ending attempts to obtain the physicist’s help for wider
access to the scientific resources in the United States. He and
his family moved from New York to Princeton in 1952, locating them
literally in Einstein’s (and the whole university community’s)
backyard. The following year Velikovsky was invited to address
the Graduate Forum at Princeton on the topic “Worlds in Collision in
the Light of Recent Finds in Archaeology, Geology and Astronomy”, in
which he provided much evidence supporting his thesis from discoveries
made since the book’s writing. In this lecture he told students the
planet Jupiter radiates in the radio-frequency range of the spectrum,
reached by the earth’s magnetic field. He had previously discussed this
hypothesis, face to face, with Einstein, who attempted to demonstrate
to Velikovsky he was wrong. [Two years later, Burke and
Franklin of the Carnegie Institution startled an audience of the American
Astronomical Society (and later, as Einstein was to publicly admit,
he himself!) with their ‘accidental’ discovery of radio noise from
Jupiter. When told of Velikovsky’s earlier, similar assertion, the
speakers replied “even Velikovsky is entitled to a ‘near miss’ every
once in a while!” Repeated occurrences of such ‘behaviour’ by
members of the American academic establishment inspired the Scientific
American obituary to Einstein to refer to Einstein’s ‘friendly
feelings’ for Velikovsky; Einstein “sympathized with the author when he
was attacked but disliked the methods used by some of his attackers.”]
From the 1953 Forum address until the time of Einstein’s death, the two
men continued to discuss the issues central to Velikovsky’s
work. Einstein was very busy in his own field, and
was very limited in the time he could spare for his ‘old
acquaintance’. Most discussions were verbal and we have no option
but to accept the Russian’s reported notes – there are also several
letters from them both to each other, readily available on the
internet. Throughout their exchanges, as I have indicated above,
Einstein had remained adamant in his conviction that sun and planets
must be electrically neutral and space must be free of magnetic fields
and plasma. When he learned, only days before his demise, that
Jupiter does emit radio noise, as his friend had for so long insisted,
he offered to use his influence in arranging for other experiments,
requested by Velikovsky for so long, to be carried out. The offer had
come too late. When Einstein died, Worlds in Collision lay open
on his desk!
Contrary to popular belief at the time Velikovsky was never a
fundamentalist – to quote the man himself, “I am not a fundamentalist
at all and I oppose fundamentalism”. He did not take the Old Testament
stories literally, but he was a devout man who kept a kosher house and
believed Old Testament miracle tales possibly reflected actual
historical events. He recognized he had no ‘qualifications’ in
astro-physics, but he did cast hypotheses from the ancient myths and
texts, suggesting explanatory possibilities relating to events
connected with the planet’s earlier years. Critics dismissed his work
‘out of hand’, often without reading it — arguing his contributions
were valueless, containing “ridiculous confusions” (e.g. between
‘hydrocarbons’ and ‘carbohydrates’, illustrating lack of
understanding of the laws governing the heat of vaporization of
solids.)
His immediate public success in the 1950s and 1960s was almost
certainly due to his ‘having arrived at the right time’. The latest
episodes of ‘born again’ Christianity had arrived, crank books and
periodicals attacking evolution, and revivals of ancient beliefs in
witchcraft, poltergeists and demon possession. It was the age of
the film The Exorcist and Billy Graham, and when three
presidential candidates professed to be evangelical Christians; the man
who won, doubting the theory of evolution and openly believing in
Biblical prediction. It was a time when Bobby Fisher captured the
world’s imagination, but refused to play chess on a Saturday, not
because he was Jewish but as a member of the World Wide Church of
God; he shared with the Seventh Day Adventists the
conviction that God never authorized a Sunday Sabbath.
As a devout believer in orthodox Judaism, Velikovsky did indeed set
himself the task of revising the laws of astronomy and physics,
re-drafting vast areas of ancient history, and spinning incredible
tales about the planet Venus to explain major miracles of the Old
Testament. One professor from the Cincinnati Medical Centre
summed up the situation in the New York Review of Books
(1979): “It is not easy for me, a scientist, to defend Velikovsky
when his cause has been taken up by people who believe in UFOs, that
plants can communicate and similar nonsense...” It is likely his Worlds
in Collision (1950) would never have found a major publisher and
become an immediate bestseller (re-printed 72 times by 1974!) if
it had not had a strong appeal to the multitude of old-time
religionists, looking for ‘new’ gurus.
Laurie Eddie’s overview is a good one but fails to identify some
important aspects I have identified. Extensive scholarship may be an
essential beginning for the advancement of human knowledge, but
specific theories must be rigorously tested as the process continues
– ensuring necessary modifications are identified as the procedure
follows. This is the only way theoretical work can proceed – and
of course, it is never as simple as I may have implied. If this
process does not happen, although new and valid insights may appear,
increasingly the theoretician easily becomes more and more divorced
from the associated academia associated with the underlying topic being
investigated. Although an individual may have much to contribute,
the essential work is always a collective process. One can
appreciate the frustrations experienced by Velikovsky as his theories
inevitably became increasingly divorced from reality.
Velikovsky was not helped by absurdities propagated by religious
movements of Christian fundamentalists, exercising tremendous public
appeal in ‘happy-clappy’ communities in the United States during this
anxious period of the ‘cold war’. None of Velikovsky’s speculations
matched the Christian tales of talking snakes; a donkey answering back
to his master; a God walking and chatting with our ancestors for whom
the Creator personally tailors clothes and decrees how priests’
breeches must be tailored; the Almighty drowning millions of living
creatures to satisfy his anger; heavenly angels ravishing earthly women
and alternatively bringing messages of peace and goodwill; un-embodied
hands writing graffiti on palace walls; Satan and his devils speaking
with people; and corpses walking through the city one of whom floats
into the clouds! How tame Velikovsky seems in comparison!
The difference, for Velikovsky, was he sought to work in the field
of Science – his theories required ‘testing’. The religions of the
world do not demand testing – all they require is ‘faith’ from their
followers. Although Velikovsky realized this difference he was
too impatient, too wide in his concurrent ranges of exploration for any
single individual, working in isolation from the wider scientific
community. The outcome could not have been other than it was.
Perceived as dependent upon the ‘nuttier congregations’ for a following
he was falsely categorized as belonging to that community. And ideas
that could well have proved fruitful if properly tested and
modified in the process became objects of ridicule.
Bob Potter.