Erich Von Danicken

Von Daniken for as wak crazy as he was turns out to have fostered and popularized panspermia and thereby influenced the writers and Ridley Scott to use it in the theme of Prometheus. But I remember he was hugely laughed at for presenting his gods from outerspace as if his flimsey evidence were fact and solid data supporting this actual thesis. If he is alive and culturally aware at this stage in his life then I would hope he would have gone and seen this gigantically popular tip of the hat to his ideas.

He is alive. He lives in Switzerland. He recently closed his Mystery Park due to financial issues. Too bad I never got the chance to visit. His movie is very good, Chariot of the Gods. His ideas are fascinating.

Erick Von Daniken posed a hypothesis based upon observations that could have been explained by some other factors or forces known or unknown. Science is based upon the scientific method, and starts with a series of observations that lead one to a hypothesis. Then the scientist performs a series of experiments that hopefully produce data that can be statistically verified by reproducibility. Only then can he make a bold statement and put forth a thesis or theory. What Von Daniken had in the late 1960s or early '70s was a series of interesting observations and that's all he had. With this collection of observations he made some strong statements and became a bold proponent of panspermia, the idea that life on earth was seeded form extraterrestrial sources, not necessarily intelligent as in mono cellular life forms brought to earth on asteroids. Another branch of this belief system goes further and suggests that intelligent extraterrestrial life forms consciously brought life to earth and even influenced our entire evolutionary development and then our cultures. This has never been proven by legitimate science and perhaps never will. This does mean that it is not true and the whole movie script of Prometheus is based upon this idea. Many scientists privately hold this possibility as creditable even though it is without any evidence. Its just like belief in the existence of God. Its beyond the realm of what is verifiable by science as Dr Shaw points out. It is something that even scientists choose to believe. Von Daniken was discredited because his ideas were based upon a loose series of observations that were not strong enoughly correlated to support his claims. Scientists that find observations that strongly support a hypothesis will publish in the international peer reviewed scientific literature. This then allows other critical thinking scientific peers to go over their findings and either to validate it by agreeing with it or arguing against it based upon scientific observations or other hypotheses that may explain the same observations. This is the way we scientists (yes I am one and hold a PhD in Organic Chemistry) deal with new ideas, and it prevents us from going out on a limb and making wild unfounded statements. Von Daniken's theories and ideas were never subjected to this testing process because he never published his findings in the peer reviewed literature and if he did then it was publically refuted. His material was published rather in the public media and was scientifically ridiculed by many documentaries. Again this is not to say that his claims won't in the long run turn out to be true or that panspermia is a false idea, it just means that Von Daniken went too far with his claims and made a lot of money in the process in book sales and speaking events.

"..Many scientists privately hold this possibility as creditable even though it is without any evidence..." A true Scientist would want their ideas validated....Is there a reason why their inner held thoughts are kept to themselves,??, To me it seems like it would be quite frustrating to think one way..but not motivated,to go through the ususal procedures for recognition. Also,,if a person believes or seeks confirmation of a theory,,doesn't this preconception already cloud the truth of investigation and lead to faulty conclusions.? I mention this because Shaw had her 'What I Choose to Believe"..credo..so anything that she discovers is either accepted,,because it fits her thinking...or she casts the data aside,,because it does not support her beliefs..