Stephen Meyer: Cosmic Inflation Is Biblical

This is something you won’t find at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog. Insead, it’s at the website of the Christian Post, which describes itself as “the nation’s most comprehensive Christian news website.” Their article is Big Bang ‘Gravity Wave’ Discovery Supports Biblical Creation, Say Old Earth Creationists.

They quote the reactions of a number of people who don’t interest us. We’ll concentrate on their reporting of the reaction of Stephen Meyer, Vice President and Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, whom the Discoveroids praise for his book about the Cambrian “explosion,” Darwin’s Doubt. It should not be forgotten that Meyer was a central figure in the infamous Sternberg peer review controversy. And as we reported here, Meyer was one of three creationist “experts” who were on the 6-member panel selected by Don McLeroy to testify before the Texas Board of Education regarding standards for science education.

Here’s what the Christian Post says, with some bold font added by us:

Some Christian scientific experts believe that the discovery of the “gravity wave,” announced earlier this week by scientists working with a South Pole telescope called BICEP 2, provides confirmation for the biblical account of creation by supporting the theory of the “big bang.”

That’s how they begin. It puts what follows in context. Skipping over what some others say, here comes Meyer:

Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at The Discovery Institute and author of the New York Times best-seller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, told CP on Tuesday that he also believes “the big bang theory supports a biblical understanding of creation.”

That’s an interesting opinion from someone who heads an allegedly scientific think tank. Let’s read on:

Meyer even suggests that the recent evidence for inflation supports the scriptural depiction of an expanding universe. “We find repeated in the Old Testament, both in the prophets and the Psalms, that God is stretching or has stretched out the heavens,” he noted, suggesting that there are “at least a dozen references” to this idea in Scripture.

We’ll skip some quotes from someone with AIG, who says: “My problem with the big bang is that it’s not biblical.” Meyer doesn’t agree:

In response, Meyer asserted that he understands the cautionary note, but added, “the support for a finite universe has been building and building since the 1900s.” He also said “it’s really odd for people from a Creationist perspective to deny a theory that says the universe began out of nothing physical.”

That’s not quite what the Big Bang theory claims, but let’s not dwell on that. The important thing is that Meyer virtually admits that he sees science “from a Creationist perspective.” Here’s more:

Meyer’s also pointed to three large scientific discoveries in the past century that supports the biblical account for creation: the big bang, which says, “the universe had a beginning;” “the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe,” which claims the rules of matter work in a way best suited for human life; and evidence of the information-bearing properties of DNA that the basic building blocks of life have a sort of knowledge.

Interesting, isn’t it — the Discoveroids always insist they’re not creationists, because their “theory” of intelligent design isn’t scriptural. But a leading Discoveroid is claiming that in his view, science supports scripture. Here’s the article’s last mention of Meyer:

Meyer reiterated his belief that Christians must use the best available scientific evidence and the best available understanding of the Bible and reconcile the two.

So there you are. Things seem to be coming unraveled. Bear this in mind the next time the Discoveroids post something that claims they’re not creationists, and their work isn’t based on religion.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

39 responses to “Stephen Meyer: Cosmic Inflation Is Biblical

  1. “Interesting, isn’t it …”
    Interesting, but far from unexpected. ID is falling apart. Basically they have given up hope that their claim “ID is not religion, it’s science” will ever be taken seriously.The play stumbles to its end; the actors fall out of their roles.
    Of course not only Inflation is Biblical; Steady State is Biblical too.

  2. So this is now the new counter position – everything is biblical so it doesn’t really matter what science throws up at them, it all works in their favour. It is beyond silly. I don’t know why I get so annoyed at IDiots, I should really just point and laugh.

  3. Yes, the Disco Tute has given up. So long as they can attract donations to keep the Gravy Train on the tracks they’ll pander to anybody with a credit card.

    A recent analysis showed that over 90% of the money raked in by the Tute goes to salaries and overhead, leaving about 10% that can be finagled into “charitable” work, and that’s being charitable! They should be the Grifto Tute. Grifters all.

    ID is totally stagnant with nothing new coming out of that rat’s nest since Behe and Dembski self-published their coffee table books.

    Now, they’ve got the crazy of the crazy writing for their “premier” website claiming everything from butterflies to the Big Bang are “intelligently designed.” Laughable.

    I wonder if the Gravy Train is running out of steam and the Tute needs to turn it’s greedy fingers to AIG’s base. That would be cool to see some creationist on creationist action!

  4. Creationist on creationist action . . . . . . the mind fairly reels. Imagine Hambo and the Gerbil chasing each other playfully around the half-built “Ark Park” . . . .yikes!

  5. I’d pay to watch creationists debate each other. It would be hard to pick who would come out looking the craziest.

  6. Professor Meyers apparently has PhD credentials in Nuclear Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Geology, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Astrophysics, and per Behe, Astrology, so he’s well qualified to speak on this topic from the biblical ID perspective. Science makes predictions, Meyers casts horoscopes.

  7. But…but…now I am really confused!

    Yesterday, the DI published on its ENV blog Bang for the Buck: What the BICEP2 Consortium’s Discovery Means, wherein Rob Sheldon boldly dismissed the BICEP2 findings:

    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.

    And at the same time, Senior DI Fellow Stephen Meyer is writing here that

    “We find repeated in the Old Testament, both in the prophets and the Psalms, that God is stretching or has stretched out the heavens,” he [Meyer] noted, suggesting that there are “at least a dozen references” to this idea in Scripture.

    “Space expanded very rapidly, and this is additional evidence supporting that inflation,” he said, referring to the study.

    So, collectively, the Disco’Tute is telling us: Our scripture-based Creationist claims are scientifically supported by a recent main-stream scientific paper in which we find nothing that inspires confidence and which we regard as a sign of the wrong-headed hubris of science itself.

    Is this Orwellian Double-Think, or what?

  8. Aha! So they are saying the scriptures are wrong and science proves it! No, wait… Oh I give up its all too confusing.

  9. I read that at the very first moment of time, the expansion/inflation of the universe was many times greater than the speed of light. Which surely supports the creationists’ view that things were different before the flood… Just saying!

  10. No it’s not Doublethink. It’s the old sales technique of “throw as much sh*t as possible at the wall and focus on what sticks.” They’ll figure out which rhetoric is getting the donation checks written and then “fine tune” their argument.

  11. anevilmeme notes

    No it’s not Doublethink. It’s the old sales technique of “throw as much sh*t as possible at the wall and focus on what sticks.”

    Yes, on reflection, I agree: even Orwell did not anticipate the Creationists’ fecundity in fashioning Gordian pretzels of illogic, for which we may need a new term. How about, “Double Un-Think“?

    As for the ‘sales technique’: it’s an apt description. But maybe we could more accurately liken it to the mutually-exclusive ‘alibis’ of a criminal caught red-handed? e.g. “No way could I have robbed the bank in New York last Monday! Here’s my hotel receipt to show I was in Paris at that time, and here are two witnesses to swear I was with them in Pocatello, Idaho, at the same time!”

  12. Ceteris Paribus

    Megalonyx bids: ” How about, “Double Un-Think“?

    I will see your Orwellian “Double Un-Think”, and raise you an even more Orwellian “Double-Plus Un-Think” .

    And since we are stirring the Witches Brew of DI, throw a flagon of “Shakespeare” into the mix:

    ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn, and caldron bubble.

    3rd WITCH. Scale of dragon; tooth of wolf;
    Witches’ mummy; maw and gulf
    Of the ravin’d salt-sea shark;
    Root of hemlock digg’d i the dark;
    Liver of blaspheming Jew;
    Gall of goat, and slips of yew
    Sliver’d in the moon’s eclipse;
    Nose of Turk, and Tartar’s lips;
    Finger of birth-strangled babe
    Ditch-deliver’d by a drab,—
    Make the gruel thick and slab:
    Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,
    For the ingrediants of our caldron.

    ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn, and caldron bubble.

    2nd WITCH. Cool it with a baboon’s blood,
    Then the charm is firm and good.

  13. “Some Christian scientific experts believe…”

    Sweet Velles, it gets off to a tremendously bad start right there. Now excuse me while i go and consult my Vegetarian scientific brethren…

  14. I think of the way that creationists’ argue against themselves(*) as a kind of “circular argument with a twist”, and thus “Mobius strip logic”. Follow the argument around the strip and you end up upside down. Or in the 3-dimensional case, “Klein bottle argument” – it can’t hold water.
    (*) My favorite is how the waters of the Flood could sort fossils, contrary to the creationist “2nd law of thermo”.

  15. Freud called it “Kettle logic.”

    Curm should have a Creative Challenge: who can list the most outrageous Creationist self-contradicting Kettle Logic.

    Fossil sorting in the Flood is a good example: perfect order created from chaod by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    What else can you list?

  16. Con-Tester proposes

    How about stercohaeretology?

    Very good–but I have a minor quibble.

    As we now know that canine dung (at least) is aligned with magnetic north–and thereby can be said to ‘encode Complex Specified Information’–the term ‘stercohaeretology’ does not quite connote the utter uselessness and impossible circularity of Creationist double-plus unthinking, I belly-feel…

  17. Diogenes: What else can you list?

    According to “Flood Theory” (and remember, it’s only a theory) oil deposits only came after the flood. So, before the flood, there could not be a lake of fire in hell. Which means all humans must have been really, really nice as there was no need for a hell. And then God drowned them all.

  18. Diogenes points out

    Freud called it “Kettle logic.”

    I think it would be a bit more accurate, for Creationism, to call it Küttel logic

  19. Meyer is author of the pseudo-textbook Explore Evolution (analysed by BCSE at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/images%20for%20blog/EE%20Exposed.pdf) and of Signature in the Cell, and of Darwin’s Doubt, discussed and destroyed by Prothero and by Matzke, no less; details at http://wp.me/p21T1L-7E. But he’s an Old earth, not a Young earth creatioist, as befits his only scientific credentials, a joint in physics and earth sciences from Whitworth, a private Liberal Arts college

  20. I’ve always thought that the anthropic principle is particularly stupid: to me it sounds like “If things were different……..then things would be different!” An idea worthy of creationists.

    Is that really all there is to it, or am I missing something?

  21. @Megalonyx already made the point, but as I was reading Sheldon’s piece, I thought to myself “It would make more sense if the DI claimed the cosmic inflation news proved God’s existence instead of attacking it as anti-religion.”

    Maybe I could get a job there, since they are willing to pay so much of their largess towards salaries. I believe the DI is the prototypical “Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone.”

  22. Garnetstar – I feel the same way about the anthropic principle. It seems to be the cosmic equivalent of the watchmaker/design argument – ‘everywhere I look, I see finely tuned parameters’. To which I usually respond ‘well duh!’. Many folks carry on at lengths about the so-called principle, and like you, I must be missing something. 🙂

  23. gnome de net

    The equivalent of the anthropic principle:
    When water is poured into a container, isn’t it miraculously amazing that the water assumes the exact same shape as the container?!

  24. Life is so much more complex than anything that any scientist has done, that it must be designed.

  25. @gnome de net: That proves that the glass had to be designed by a higher intelligence that knew the exact shape the water would assume once it was poured! Of course! Just like that higher intelligence knew that life forms would need oxygen, so therefore… oxygen was invented!

  26. Garnetstar wrote;
    I’ve always thought that the anthropic principle is particularly stupid: to me it sounds like “If things were different……..then things would be different!”

    The anthropic principle probably only works in a multiverse. The reason we are here and it looks like everything was tweaked for life is that we are only one of an unlimited number of universes, many of which are lifeless due to different physical settings. Some never formed stars, others collapsed quickly, etc.

  27. I’m all for Mega’s proposal of Küttel-logik as it translates very well in Dutch: keutellogica. How does turdy-logic sound to Anglo-Saxon ears?

  28. Religion was a part of ID movement from the beginning. Many of the current ID gurus have said they believe the designer is God. For example I have heard Dembski say that twice. By checking previous published statements one can find quite a few examples that ID proponents base their ideas on religion. Of course, they continue to lie.

    Quotes from Phillip Johnson, Godfather of the ID Movement:

    “The objective of the [Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’” Touchstone Magazine, June 2002.

    “This isn’t really and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.” World Magazine 1996.

    There are more such statements when one searches!

  29. mnbo tests a neologism:

    How does turdy-logic sound to Anglo-Saxon ears?

    Not too sure. One can smuggle it to the text of Beowulf pretty unobtrusively, to wit:

    Hwæt? Wé Cdeásynpropronentsyts in géardagum
    þéodclyninga tyrdemynde gefrúnon·

    Rough translation: “What the f[edited out]? Of the Creationsts, of days gone by / those Clown Kings; we’ve heard all their turdy-logic”

    But for modern English, maybe a translation like “soph$h*try” is more euphonious?

  30. Freud called it kettle logic from the story of a man who borrows a kettle and returns it broken. Accused, he defends himself thusly:

    “It was broken when I borrowed it, it was unbroken when I returned it, and I never borrowed it in the first place!”

    Seriously, Curm should make it a Creative Challenge.

  31. On English we sometimes use the phrase pretzel logic. Not so scatological.

    I use the phrase Kafkalogical to describe contradictory straw-man: e.g. when creationists define a transitional species as something that must be exactly like a living species (any difference at all proves they’re unrelated “kinds”) while simultaneously being totally different from a living species (any similarity at all means the species appeared “fully formed”.)

  32. Diogenes says: “Freud called it kettle logic … . Seriously, Curm should make it a Creative Challenge.”

    No need. I already have a term for it: Encolonization. It’s the condition of having one’s head inconveniently located so as to cause creationist thinking.

  33. Did you mean craniorectal inversion? Or maybe encephalocolization? It all works.

    The Creationists were quiet for a day or two after Cosmos aired, but are going kind of nuts (more than usual) on the interwebs since yesterday.

  34. “Encolonization.” Consider it stolen. 🙂

  35. Stephen Kennedy

    This discovery of gravitational waves seems to really taken the creationists by surprise and they do not know how to cope with a discovery that pretty much destroys all the objections they have built up over the years against the Big Bang Theory.

    Jason Lisle at ICR has said nothing at all, Danny Faulkner at AIG can only muster a feeble and inane response and the discoveroids are publishing low quality and contradictory statements by different writers.

    If the discoverers of this B-mode polarization in the CMB do not receive the Nobel prize, they should at least get some sort of Science prize for the angst they have caused among the creationists.

  36. Ha! Just as I predicted on the AiG thread, the Discoveroids would spin it in their favor! Now for my next prediction: Today a dog will bark.

  37. @vhutchison::

    Religion was a part of ID movement from the beginning. Many of the current ID gurus have said they believe the designer is God. For example I have heard Dembski say that twice. By checking previous published statements one can find quite a few examples that ID proponents base their ideas on religion. Of course, they continue to lie.

    It’s all in Forrest and Gross’ book Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge Of Intelligent Design.

  38. Yes, the comments and more are in the book. I have a copy and have read it and used information therein many times!