Sea Breeze said "There have been tens of thousand of reviews of Dr. Sanfords peer reviewed research on genetic entropy." But where can a person find such a vast quantity of those reviews? I have not found even a minute fraction of such, though I have found some positive online posts made by creationist Christians.
Folks, notice that when Sea Breeze quoted my words of "he has received high honors in regards to his intellect. His intellect is what is relevant" he left out the key words of "regarding what his science book (called A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing) teaches." Sea Breeze then misrepresented my comment. The point of my comment (in what I quote above) was that I am interested in the scientific ideas presented in Krauss' science book and thus Krauss' intellect in intellectual matters (especially in scientific matters) is relevant in that subject, but allegations (even if true) about Krauss' morality are not relevant to determining the accuracy of what Krauss says in his science book. A person's sexual morality is important, but it has no bearing on the value of what the person has written on scientific matters. A person can be immoral in various ways and yet still be excellent in doing science, in making scientific discoveries, and in being a scientific expert. Probably most of the people I know are immoral in some way and yet are doing excellent work in their careers. Furthermore, according to the Bible every human (no matter how pious) alive is a sinner anyway. It should also be be noted that Krauss has never been jailed, nor apparently even arrested.
However, I now think that Krauss did sexually harass multiple women and that is disturbing. But, it still does not prevent me from reading what Krauss wrote on science, since I wish to learn about science from an expert in science, and I wish to learn learn the implications of it in regards to atheism and scientific naturalism. Today I browsed Krauss' book and I noticed that many of his scientific claims in the book are ones I had read by other scientists about cosmology. As a result, thus far his book seems very reliable to me. Krauss' book includes an "Afterword" by Richard Dawkins which endorses what Krauss says in Krauss's science book. In it Dawkins says the following [I added the boldface for emphasis.].
'But some of what we do know, we know not just approximately (the universe is not mere thousands but billions of years old): we know it with confidence and with stupefying accuracy. I've already mentioned that the age of the universe is measured to four significant figures. That's impressive enough, but it is nothing compared to the accuracy of some of the predictions with which Lawrence Krauss and his colleagues can amaze us.
... Do the laws and constants of physics look like a finely tuned put-up job, designed to bring us into existence? Do you think some agent must have caused everything to start? Read Victor Stenger if you can't see what's wrong with arguments like that. Read Steven Weinburg, Peter Atkins, Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking. And now we can read Lawrence Krauss for what looks to me like the knockout blow. Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If On the Origin of Species was biology's deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see A Universe from Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.'
I thus think I made a wise decision to buy Krauss's book for its scientific content and to choose to study it.
Regarding the quote of Krauss saying he did not feel tarnished in any way by his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and that Krauss felt raised by it, perhaps Krauss was saying that Jeffry Epstein's intellectual clout uplifted the clout of Krauss, and to a greater degree (at the time) than allegations about Epstein weakened the prestige of Krauss. Alternatively, by "raised by it" maybe Krauss meant he received financial funding for his scientific work from Epstein (who was a financier of multiple people). Note that those words by Krauss of "raised by it" were made in the year 2011, which was after Epstein had been released early from prison (with an extensive work release]) and several years before Epstein was arrested again in 2019.
Furthermore, Krauss might have been sincere in saying he never saw any underage females (or at least none which Krauss thought were underage) around Epstein. [But regarding what Krauss is quoted as saying in 2011 (a year before Krauss' science book was copyrighted) and of what he was quoted as saying in 2015, maybe that means Krauss made a lie in that matter.] Regarding if Krauss was sincere in saying he never saw underage females around Epstein https://skepchick.org/2011/04/lawrence-krauss-defends-a-sex-offender-embarrasses-scientists-everywhere/ mentions the following information. Note I include the quotes of Krauss' words along with some of the preceding negative comments of the website which are about Krauss, for the purpose of context.
"Krauss’ statement is extremely disturbing
and makes scientists look like ignorant, biased fools who will twist
data to suit their own needs. It’s great that a billionaire thought
enough of scientific research to fund some of our best and brightest
scientists, but that doesn’t mean he’s perfect. It doesn’t even mean
he’s not a monster. Those scientists should have the rationality needed
to separate their personal feelings from what the evidence shows us, and
Krauss has publicly failed in that regard, bringing an enormous amount
of embarrassment to scientists and critical thinkers everywhere.
When the Skepchicks received this tip, we
wondered if the quote was taken out of context – after all, we all
admire Krauss for his books, talks, and public outreach. So, I emailed
Krauss to get his thoughts directly. He confirmed that the statement was
accurate and sent this statement, which I’m printing as is, in full
(see below edit for additional info):
yes it is.. Based on my direct experience with Jeffrey,
which is all I can base my assessment on, he is a thoughtful, kind,
considerate man who is generous to his friends, and all of the women I
have known who have been associated with Jeffrey speak glowingly in the
same words..
…
jeffrey apparently paid for massages with sex… I believe him when he
told me he had no idea the girls were underage, and I doubt that people
normally are asked for or present a driver’s license under such
circumstances… Moreover, I also believe that Jeffrey is an easy target
for those who want to take advantage of him… Moreover, I can say with
great honesty that Jeffrey’s time in prison led him to seriously examine
his life in very positive ways and I don’t believe in blanket
condemnations of people. He served time for something that was
determined was inappropriate. I honestly don’t know who was the victim
in this case. probably everyone was a victim, with no happy resolution
or consequences of these activities. I fully expect that these masseuses
knew what they were doing, and were not swayed to do anything with
Jeffrey that they were not already doing. That is not to approve of the
whole behavior, but lots of peopleI know and like have behavior I don’t
entirely approve of.. I know it is not politically correct to say that,
because in general this is a very sensitive issue and all other things
being equal one should take the side of the young women. But all things
are not equal in this case, from my point of view. It is a judgement
call, and I will not turn my back on a good friend so easily.
...
//UPDATE: Krauss has emailed me to point out that I didn’t include a
remark he made in an earlier email to me (prior to the statement I
published). My apologies, as I assumed his second email was the full
statement he wanted published. I’ve updated this post to add his first
email, which now appears as the first paragraph of his statement prior
to the ellipses.
He also wanted to add the following, which, again, I post as-is and in full:
I have read on the web claims of orgies on Jeffrey’s
island during scientific meetings that I organized.. Orgies in which I
was supposed to have been involved. This kind of nonsense has made me
very skeptical of media reports on Jeffrey’s activities. Moreover, I am
naturally skeptical by nature, and have looked in to a number of these
supposed events, but am not going to share any details with you because I
don’t think these are issues that are relevant to Jeffrey’s support of
science, my scientific credentials etc.. or that I should discuss in
public in any case… I will say however, that as a skeptic you might ask
yourself whether there might be any motivation to potentially sue a
billionaire with whom you may have been involved in one way or another…
someone who might rather settle out of court for a large fee rather than
have to deal with publicity, sleazy journalists etc? no, that never
happens does it? Not very skeptical of you to wonder I think..
//UPDATE 2: Krauss is continuing to respond in the comments below under the username lmk2011. He’s confirmed to me that this is actually him.
... 91. lmk2011 says:
April 6, 2011 at 7:39 pm
I will add one remark here, as most people have not read my full set
of comments, posted after the post appeared.. I am myself rather
disappointed by the lack of skepticality of this community. As I said, I
have read numerous reports of orgies on Jeffrey’s island involving me
and other scientists during our meetings.. Orgies that never happened, I
am VERY skeptical of other claims on his behavior. I am defending
Jeffrey for 2 reasons: (1) Based on my knowledge and experience I am
skeptical of the claims in the media and of those who have settled
claims for money… namely I don’t believe the published details just like
I tend to be skeptical of many published details on the internet.. I
don’t believe Jeffrey did what has been claimed, and unless I see hard
evidence, I will trust my own judgement here, and (2) Jeffrey went to
prison, and I happen to believe that having served time, even those who
questioned his behavior should be willing to give him the benefit of the
doubt, again until proved otherwise, that he is working hard to live a
good life and do good things. I for one am disgusted that people eat up
the salacious nonsense the read on the web and then jump to conclusions
about things and people they do not know.. I do not jump to condemn
people, especially when it concerns their sexual preferences. I DO NOT
CONDONE sex with young girls, or young boys for that matter.. because
there are real victims there.. Until I know all the facts however, I do
not jump to conclusions, and I am sorry, having seen the media frenzy
around Jeffrey, and having seen the shoddy behavior of those who have
attacked him, I remain skeptical, and I support a man whose character I
believe I know.. If you want to condemn me for that, so be it.
L. Krauss
... 125. lmk2011 says:
April 7, 2011 at 12:45 am
I was not going to comment further, but a dear friend has asked me to
make my position even clearer. Each time I do, I find my comments
deconstructed, but here goes:
I condemn the acts that have been described in the media, but I don’t
believe Jeffrey did them, and I have personally had no compelling
evidence to the contrary, and lots of reason to be suspicious of what I
have read. Moreover, for those who are confused, there was no trial, no
evidence presented at a trial, no jury decision. So I am not pitting
myself against a court of law. There was a plea bargain, for a host of
reasons that people can speculate about. One could also speculate that
the prosecution would not have considered a plea bargain had they had a
compelling case, but I am not making that assumption. Now, am I wrong to
trust someone I believe I can trust when we have talked at length about
this in detail? Perhaps. But I have tried to make an assessment based
on my knowledge of the events, the reports, and the man. Since I don’t
believe there was rape, child-molestation, or moving minors from one
country to another for sexual purposes, I cannot in all good conscience
condemn my friend, even if it leads to condemnation of me. I may be
wrong or deluded in my conclusions, but I am acting honorably, as I see
it, based upon them.
Moreover, as I have tried to say repeatedly, even if you choose to
disagree with me, and for some reason think you have better evidence
that these events happened than I do, the fact is that Jeffrey went to
prison, and I know for a fact came out of prison a more thoughtful
responsible man who was intent on doing good. I would hope people would
not be so quick to assume that this is not possible, and that if any of
you were in this situation that you would hope that people would be
willing to allow for this possibility.
It has been a difficult decision to stand by what I believe are the
facts of the matter in spite of attacks from people I would like the
respect of, but that is the way it is. As some of you know, I just wrote
a book about Richard Feynman, and as I thought about the derision on
the web, I remember his statement, What do you care what other people
think? I think he would have done the same thing I have done if he
assessed the situation as I have.
L. Krauss"
Regarding Sea Breeze's comments about Jeffery Epstein I had no recent knowledge of Jeffery Epstein until reading those comments (and of what I read on a Wikpedia page about Krauss) and I didn't know if the accusations about Jeffery Epstein were true or not. It now looks to me that like they were true. I had probably heard some years ago in the TV news about Epstein's arrest and criminal charges against him, but if so I had forgotten about them and of Epstein. When I watch the news I usually have very little interest in knowing about scandals (unless knowing about specific ones can help me to make some good decisions).
Clarification: Regarding my comment (in my prior post) "of Ad hominem attacks" I did not mean that Sea Breeze was doing such in regards to me. Rather I meant I perceived such attacks as being made against Krauss in way to discourage people from reading Krauss's science book and to discourage people from accepting the scientific claims made by Krauss in that book. I now think that perhaps the comments by Sea Breeze might not technically be Ad hominem attacks, since Sea Breeze was not directly debating Krauss' statements on science (though Sea Breeze was criticizing me we for wanting to read Krauss' book).
