Creationists Say The End Is Nigh!

WE present to you, dear reader, an incredibly important news item from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — truly the fountainhead of creationist wisdom. They have an alarming new article at their website: Study Shows the Universe Is Closer to the End Than Expected.

Surely their title has grabbed your attention. Pay heed, because you may never read anything that means more to you. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Every known system degenerates. Metal rusts, food rots, and flowers wither. Even something as large as the universe will eventually run down. How much usable and still-ordered energy remains in the universe?

We told you this was important. Let’s read on:

Australian researchers have generated a new estimate, one that includes the energy-destroying effects of “supermassive black holes.” Their computations indicate that the universe is perhaps 30 times more run down than similar estimates published just last year.

Here we must interrupt the ICR narrative to provide a bit of reality. The ICR author mentions the work he’s discussing, but he provides no link. Why should he? Creationists never follow links to science information. Your Curmudgeon will remedy that deficiency.

Here’s the abstract of the article that ICR is … well, creationizing: A LARGER ESTIMATE OF THE ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE. You’ll need a subscription to read it. We doubt that ICR subscribes to The Astrophysical Journal, but we found an article about this at the website ScienceNews, and it’s is probably the sort of thing ICR used as its source: Universe has more entropy than thought. That article says:

A new calculation of entropy … suggests that the universe is messier than scientists had thought — and slightly further along on its gradual journey to death, two Australian cosmologists conclude.

An analysis … indicates that the collective entropy of all the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies is about 100 times higher than previously calculated.

[...]

Egan and Lineweaver’s new value for the entropy of the universe is still a billionth of a billionth the maximum possible entropy that researchers have estimated. Nonetheless, the new value “indicates that that the universe is a bit closer to the heat death than previously computed,” comments theorist Paul Davies of Arizona State University in Tempe.

Not everyone agrees that the higher entropy contributed by supermassive black holes puts the universe closer to heat death. Theorist Ned Wright of the University of California, Los Angeles says that because the extra entropy is locked inside the black holes, the rest of the universe should have lower entropy and be further away from heat death.

In other words, there’s not much to worry about. Now let’s return to the ICR article:

Though some of the assumptions used in the Egan and Lineweaver study rely on aspects of Big Bang cosmology, a large portion of the computed entropy was derived from temperature and volume measurements or estimates. A host of other observations has demolished the Big Bang theory [footnote to an ICR article], but the very fact that the universe is slowing down is both counter to evolutionary assumptions and supportive of biblical creation.

The Big Bang is “demolished,” and the prediction of the universe’s ultimate heat death is “counter to evolutionary assumptions.” Amazing what one can learn from creationists. We continue:

The longstanding scientific observation of continually decreasing order in all systems contradicts the evolutionary doctrine that order has spontaneously increased [footnote to an ICR article]. But evolution’s simple-to-complex story has been so uncritically accepted that it isn’t surprising that the science of entropy, which calls that story into question, is not as well known.

You are so blinded by evolution that you’ve probably never heard of entropy. Here’s more:

Since the universe is currently unwinding through natural processes, it stands to reason that at some point it was intentionally “wound up” by something outside of the universe. This corresponds well with the Bible’s assertion that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” [Footnote to Genesis 1:1]

Yes! The cosmic Winder-Upper did it. Skipping over some scriptural quotations, we come to this:

Egan and Lineweaver suggested that future research could use their new numbers to recalculate how much time the universe has left. But failing to consider revelation from the God of creation must lead to confusion over the ultimate questions of origin and destiny.

The scientists are confused, but ICR has things under control. Here’s how the article ends:

Whereas evolutionary scientists can be sure that the universe is running down — though unsure about when it started or how it will end — God states that “all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll,”[footnote to Isaiah 34:4] “and the stars shall fall from heaven,”[footnote to Matthew 24:29] so that He can establish “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”[footnote to 2 Peter 3:13].

This present universal economy will be supernaturally restructured long before it fizzles out.

Will the cosmologists pay heed to ICR? Probably not. They’re such fools!

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Discovery Institute Touts Another Genius

THE neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids) are promoting another creationist book. Their blog announces: Interview with Intelligent Design Mathematician Granville Sewell Now Online

Who is “intelligent design mathematician” Granville Sewell? Wikipedia informs us:

Edward Granville Sewell is an American mathematician, university professor, and intelligent design advocate. He is currently a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas, El Paso.

[...]

Sewell is signatory to the Discovery Institute’s A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition. … [H]e reiterates the view that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Impressed? There’s more to come. Here are some excerpts from the Discoveroid blog article, with bold added by us:

A new website has just launched in support of Dr. Granville Sewell’s new book, In The Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design. Along with information about the book, there is a nice brief interview with Sewell that you will want to read.

We wrote about Sewell and his book a couple of weeks ago: Math Disproves Evolution. It must be great book because it’s published by Discovery Institute Press.

Let’s read on in the Discoveroid blog. They give us a sample question & answer from the online interview. Check this out:

Q. You express some doubt that even under “the right conditions, the influx of stellar energy into a planet could cause atoms to rearrange themselves into nuclear power plants and spaceships and computers.” This, you say, ought to be “considered an open question” at least by scientists and the public alike. Why isn’t it?

That’s a question worth highlighting by the Discoveroids? Here’s Sewell’s answer, which is so loaded with wisdom that we’ll break it into smaller paragraphs for easy reading:

A. A typical college physics text I read contains the statement “One of the most remarkable simplifications in physics is that only four distinct forces account for all known phenomena.”

Most people just haven’t ever thought about things in this way, that if you don’t believe in intelligent design, you must believe this claim, that the four unintelligent forces of physics caused atoms on Earth to rearrange themselves into nuclear power plants, spaceships and computers.

When they do think about it, they may start to see things a little differently. This is part of the “broader view” that is often missed by biologists, but noticed by mathematicians and physicists.

Good, huh? That’s the teaser the Discoveroids think will encourage you to click over to Sewell’s website where you can hear the entire interview in all its brilliance. Then you’ll want to run out and buy his book. And then you’ll be convinced that creationism is the way to go.

Oh, at the very end, the Discoveroid article reminds us that Sewell thinks Darwin’s theory is “easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science.”

It looks like the Discoveroids have found another champion; and maybe Casey will have another hero. In Seattle, life is good.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

A Theologian Looks at Science

IN the Guardian (formerly the Manchester Guardian), we read Quantum physics, wavy cows and us. The article is sub-titled: “Some aspects of science defy the mind’s ability to understand. What kind of meaning can we give them?”

The piece is written by Thomas Jackson, who is the author of Darwin’s Error: The Poet Who Died (Amazon listing). Perhaps that’s a hint of what lies ahead. Here are some excerpts from Guardian column, with bold added by us:

It is sometimes thought that our society is superior to most other civilisations because they were based on irrational myths, whereas ours is based on rational enquiry and the experimental method.

Yes, that’s our opinion. Is that a dubious proposition? Let’s read on:

This is quite wrong-headed. Far from being irreconcilably opposed, science and myth are indissolubly married to each other.

When a column starts out telling us that we’re wrong about something rather fundamental, we want to know if the author has anything to say that’s worth thinking about. We continue:

This is because the propositions of science are made up of facts that entail meanings. The first can be established with certainty and known, whereas the second can only be surmised and imagined. Thus scientists attribute astonishingly different meanings to the same sets of facts.

Where is this going?

All are agreed, for example, that average global temperatures have not risen since 1998. Some think this shows that global warming is not happening, others that it is merely evidence of the complexity of climate change.

At least he didn’t babble about creationism. The article continues:

All are agreed that the force binding atomic nuclei together has the apparently arbitrary value of 0.007, and if it were 0.006 or 0.008 we wouldn’t be here. Some think that this is evidence for intelligent design. But others think that in a multiverse there is bound to be one world where the number happens to be 0.007, ours as it happens. Yet others think that one day a grand unified theory will be discovered that will show 0.007 is not arbitrary at all.

That’s an interesting paragraph. Here’s more:

Scientists, as scientists, have always felt the need to provide images or models to give their findings and theories explanatory weight, a major topic in the philosophy of science. But as human beings they are inevitably going to go beyond this and attribute meanings to their discoveries, even if they think that “meanings” are not required by the human mind, for that itself is a philosophical stance.

That’s another one good one. Will the columnist be able to resolve these things? Moving along:

At the macrocosmic level, cosmologists are talking about an infinity of universes as the most rational response to the conundrums with which they find themselves presented. An infinity of universes?

[...]

At the microcosmic level we find that subatomic elements are both particles and waves, thus defying the most basic law of logic that A cannot be both A and not-A, that two particles once entangled are still in instantaneous communication with each other …

That’s all every thought-provoking, but surely he’s not going to tell us that contradictions are okay, so let’s all support our neighborhood swami. We keep asking: Where is the author going with this?

Scientific history suggests that attempts to explain major contradictions in data have eventually done so through the discovery not just of answers to puzzles, but whole new realms of intelligibility.

Yes, science advances by providing ever deeper levels of understanding — objects, chemistry, atoms, sub-atomic particles, etc. Therefore:

Could there be dimensions even beyond the quantum that would make sense of these contradictions if only we could enter into them?

Aaaargh!! “Dimensions beyond the quantum.” We were afraid of something like this. Here’s another excerpt:

Being a theologian rather than a physicist…

That explains a great deal. Moving on:

The most reasonable imaginary meaning I myself can bestow on all this is that, if cows can, we ourselves exist not only on the level of local particulates, co-ordinated by space and time, but also on the level of non-local, universal waves. It is as if, in this life, we merely “collapse the wave function” as the physicists say.

Huh? Too late to turn back now. Here comes the end:

This sounds astonishingly like the most fundamental proposition of religion, that we exist not merely on a material local dimension but on a transcendental universal one as well. Or is there a better and more rational way of imagining what these strange facts might mean?

This thing started out in a most promising way, but it left us with a bit of a brain-ache. Perhaps you, dear reader, can make sense of it all. If so, please let us know.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Experimental Open Thread (08 Feb ‘10)

YOUR Curmudgeon can’t find any news of The Controversy at the moment, so we’re going to try something new — an open thread.

The profanity filters are still active and the use of certain words will result in your comments’ being delayed by moderation. To get around the filters you can use asterisks for those words. Aside from that there will be none of our enlightened censorship. Feel free to express yourselves. Bicker, bluster, blaspheme.

Caveat: At the end of the day your Curmudgeon will decide, in his sole discretion, if this has been: (a) a roaring success, perhaps to be repeated in the future; or (b) a complete disaster. In the latter case the thread will probably be deleted along with your comments. That might happen even before the end of the day if we decide it’s necessary.

It’s possible that we’ll leave the thread up, but selectively edit or delete those comments that are far beyond our Curmudgeonly ability to tolerate. Don’t complain if your comments or perhaps the whole thread vanishes forever. This is an experiment.

With that encouraging introduction, the experiment begins. As the Wicked Witch said to her monkeys: “Fly! Fly! Fly!”

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Creation: 3rd Weekend Box Office Results

Creation: The true story of Charles Darwin

Creation, the movie, has completed its third weekend in the US. Earlier US results are discussed here: 1st Weekend Box Office Results and 2nd Weekend Box Office Results

The estimated results can be seen at this website box office results, February 5-7. The films are listed by gross receipts, so you’ll have to scroll down to number 45 (that will be adjusted when final figures are in). Here are the preliminary numbers:

Showing at 9 theaters (down from 12 last weekend)
Total gross receipts: $18,500 ($39,994 last weekend, which had 3 more theaters)
Receipts per theater: $2,056 ($3,333 last weekend)

The average of receipts per theater is down from last weekend, but if you look at the entire list of 64 films, only ten of them did better. Creation is still doing well for the theaters that are showing it.

Let’s compare this to Ben Stein’s creationist documentary, Expelled, for that film’s third weekend. The results are online here. Scroll down to the 15th film. It was showing at 656 theaters, way down from 1,041 theaters on its 2nd weekend. The average per theater was $1,034, about the same as the earlier weekend.

So for its third weekend in the US, Creation is grossing almost twice as much per theater as Expelled did. Creation doesn’t look like it will make any money for its producers, but it doubtful that Ben Stein’s film did either. At least Creation wasn’t wildly promoted and distributed at over 1,000 theaters. That had to be a financial disaster for the backers of Expelled. However, given the per-theater results, maybe Creation should have been promoted more aggressively.

Hey, don’t be glum. The theory of evolution won’t stand or fall on the performance of this movie. A film about Isaac Newton wouldn’t be a box office hit either, but his work has stood up rather well.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article