The big news, and the creationists’ initial reaction, were already described in AIG Reacts to the Cosmic Inflation News. Now it’s the turn of the Discoveroids — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page.
The newest article at their creationist blog is Bang for the Buck: What the BICEP2 Consortium’s Discovery Means. It’s written by Rob Sheldon, a name that is unfamiliar to us. In his own way, he describes the news and then says that it’s:
being hailed as next year’s Nobel Prize in Physics, the confirmation of two different fundamental cosmological theories at one blow: Einstein’s General Theory (gravity) and Alan Guth’s Inflationary Cosmology. Or is this all hype?
Well, is it all hype? Sheldon babbles a bit, and then he says, with some bold font added by us for emphasis:
Nearly all cosmologists accepted this [Guth’s] model in one form or another, preferring it to the increasingly disturbing “fine tuning” argument employed by advocates of intelligent design among others.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s all about denying the otherwise obvious evidence of the intelligent designer — blessed be he! — who fine tuned the universe for our convenience. Yes, that’s the principal effort of scientists these days — desperately attempting to discredit the Discoveroids’ brilliant theory. Then we’re told:
But Guth’s speculation has proved hard to demonstrate. Numerous theoretical problems have sent it back to the drawing board, and it is now in its third or fourth iteration. … So it seems as if the model will die a death of a thousand cuts if we don’t give it a data transfusion soon. That is why so many people are seeing this BICEP2 result as Nobel Prize material, because it not only rescues the favored model of cosmologists, but also saves the jobs of a thousand people at two national labs who are having to justify their expensive failure.
Lordy, lordy. What would we do without the Discoveroids to expose the shameless scam of science? But hang in there, dear reader. It gets better:
What exactly did the BICEP2 telescope observe? Well just to clear the air, it neither measured gravitons nor inflatons. What it actually measured was the polarization of light from the Big Bang, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation.
That’s true. Gravitons have not been detected, nor actual gravity waves — just their predicted effect. Then, after denigrating the findings and their interpretation, Sheldon says:
Why then do I give this paper a 1 in 10^60 chance of being correct?
We’re really interested in knowing why a Discoveroid dismisses the BICEP2 results, so let’s read on:
There are just too many ways in which the assumptions of the modelers are unconsciously affecting the results for this to be believed. As Richard Feynman said about physics, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
The cosmologists are just seeing what they want to see. That’s in contrast to the Discoveroids, whose science isn’t in any way biased by subjectivity. Intelligent design is rock-solid science! Sheldon continues:
But hasn’t the BICEP2 consortium looked at all the alternatives and found them wanting? Ahh, this is the great conceit of modelers, that they have included all the physics. As a famous Secretary of State once said, “There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns — there are things we do not know we don’t know.” It is those unknown unknowns that are the real gremlins in the model.
Actually, that was said by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Anyway, Sheldon has pinpointed what he thinks is the cosmologists’ glaring defect — they haven’t factored in the “unknown unknowns.” That totally discredits their results! Then, to support his claim, Sheldon quotes the cosmologists’ paper:
The main uncertainty in foreground modeling is currently the lack of a polarized dust map.
Sheldon eagerly seizes on that admission:
In plain talk, they just said they guessed as to what the dust effect would be and then found a 2.2-sigma signal above that assumed noise. That means if the dust were to be, oh, three times as bright as they expected, their signal would disappear. From my own contacts in the astrophysics field, I know that magnetized dust is even more polarizing than regular dust, which for them is an unknown unknown. Shouldn’t they have waited for a five-sigma effect? Or at least, waited for the Planck data release to give them a dust model? Why the hurry?
Perhaps that’s a fair question. Here’s Sheldon’s answer:
Because the measurement of CMB polarization is a crowded field, and they wanted to be the first to publish. … They wanted a ground-breaking theory; they wanted to be the first to publish; they didn’t want to wait for necessary background data; they wanted splash and that is what they got.
Greedy, glory-seeking cosmologists — how disgusting! And here’s Sheldon’s conclusion:
Nothing in this paper inspires confidence in the results, but rather seems to highlight the hubris that is at the heart of 21st-century big science.
In other words, pay no attention to the latest discovery. It’s worthless. It’s riddled with unknown unknowns. Stick with what is known — by the Discoveroids — with absolute certainty: Everything is the handiwork of the intelligent designer.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.