This is a good one from the Discovery Institute. It was written by Denyse O’Leary — that’s her bio page at the Discoveroids’ website, which informs us that “She received her degree in honors English language and literature.” She’s one of the best of the current Discoveroid bloggers — which says a lot. The last time we wrote about her was Discoveroids and the Big Bang.
Her new post at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog is Cosmology Is Naturalism’s Playground. But Does the Fun Mask a Science Decline? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
I have been thinking about how naturalism rots science from the head down, for example, by making it nearly impossible to have a rational discussion of the Big Bang or the apparent fine-tuning of our universe and our planet for life.
Denyse has been thinking. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then she says:
Oddly, the naturalist theories that attempt to account for these facts without design in nature do not necessarily require assessment against each other, as would be the case if they represented whole, complex schools of thought. They appear mostly to be churned up ad hoc. Reading current cosmology literature is an adventure. We are a long way from relativity, quantum mechanics, and finding the Higgs boson.
Yes — naturalist theories are just a bunch of ad hoc nonsense, unlike the brilliantly consistent, all-encompassing “theory” of intelligent design — which explains everything. After that she tells us:
Cosmology has become an art form. Stylish essays are decked out with a very brief skirt of science.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s the Discoveroids’ response to what we’ve been saying since 2010 in Intelligent Design, the Great Incongruity:
How does ID differ from that good old fashioned, down-home, foot-stompin’, psalm-singin’, floor-rollin’, rafter-shakin’, old-time creationism? Traditional creationism is openly and honestly religious, while ID is the Discoveroids’ “Don’t ask, don’t tell” version of creationism. ID creationists have repackaged their dogma into an ostensibly secular concept which they claim is a scientific theory. Despite ID’s complete lack of any scientific attributes, it is promoted as a scientific alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. But it’s a flimsy disguise — a reversible coat with meaningless science jargon on the outside and miracles on the inside — a garment made for flashers.
Neat, huh? We’ve described intelligent design as a flasher’s coat, and Denyse says naturalist theories are “decked out with a very brief skirt of science.” Great response! She continues — with examples:
Frequent topics give some sense of the genre: For example, consider the claim that our universe is actually only two-dimensional but appears to be three-dimensional — a hologram.
We see the same thing with the claim that our universe is a computer simulation created by aliens, taken seriously by well-known astrophysicist and science presenter Neil deGrasse Tyson and by theoretical physicist and Templeton winner Martin Rees. Aliens?
Then there is the notion of universes parallel to ours. … A Cosmos Magazine article [Can we test for parallel worlds?] invokes Darwinism in support of these parallel worlds:
[Denyse quotes from the end of that article:] Is this not all too absurd to take seriously? Not for the physicists, it seems. And as David Wallace points out in The Emergent Multiverse [no link provided, but here it is at Amazon], our sense of absurdity evolved to help us scratch a living on the savannahs of Africa. The universe is not obliged to conform to it.
It should be noted that the ideas mentioned by Denyse are regarded as extremely speculative, and none are accepted as well-established theories. Nevertheless, Denyse thinks that this is what “secularism” is all about. She declares:
So the standard of evidence has been reduced to that of Darwinism. Indeed, we are informed that we can believe in parallel universes if we would only discard a classic science principle like Occam’s Razor (that is, go with the simplest explanation).
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Darwinism leads only to wild ideas — unlike the rock-solid “science” of intelligent design. Denyse indignantly exclaims:
Those who still defend a reality-based view of science seem to be slowly losing ground. Overall, science is experiencing a massive invasion of post-fact.
Yes, the Discoveroids are losing ground to the crazy secularists. Let’s read on:
What strikes one is the fundamental unseriousness of it all. That would not necessarily matter. Unserious disciplines can often be ignored. However, there is a looming, much more serious problem, which I hope to explore in more depth later: Efforts are underway to change the rules of science to accommodate theories that seem to have lost touch with evidence: For example, … .
We’ll skip her trivial example. One last excerpt:
Actually, it is not an oversimpliciction. That is exactly what we are being asked to do, in order to accommodate non-evidence-based theory. If this trend continues, science will become indistinguishable from literary fiction.
So there you are. The Discoveroids are now declaring that they are the defenders of science. All those oddball cosmological speculations are Darwinist rubbish. The only true science is that the universe, the laws of nature, life, and you, are the work of the intelligent designer — blessed be he! Verily, Denyse is the voice of reason.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.