There’s a new post at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog by an author we haven’t seen there for a while. It’s Kirk Durston, whom the Discoveroids introduced in this earlier post by telling us:
Dr. Durston is a scientist, philosopher, and clergyman with a PhD in Biophysics, an MA in Philosophy, a BSc in Mechanical Engineering, and a BSc in Physics.
We respectfully refer to him as rev Durston. The last time we wrote about him was a year ago — see Intelligent Design — It’s Twue, It’s Twue! The rev’s new post is titled On Fantasy in Modern Science.
That title is coming from a creationist source, so take a moment to enjoy the irony. Okay? Let’s proceed. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Surprisingly, science fiction, both good and bad, has crept into modern science, to the extent that for many people the distinction between doing science, and creative storytelling, has become blurred. In an earlier post [link omitted], I discussed experimental science, which can be very trustworthy and is the source of every technological and medical benefit we enjoy today. In a subsequent post [link omitted] I looked at inferential science, both good and not-so-good. Now I am going to consider a third category of modern science, which I call “fantasy science,” where science fiction is often confused with science.
Ooooooooooooh! Fantasy science. The rev is obviously thinking of evolution, so this should be fun. His post is rather long, so we’ll just skip along and pluck out the goodies — like this:
Our observations of the universe, as well as our knowledge of theoretical physics, reveal that the universe appears to be fantastically fine-tuned to support life. Sir Roger Penrose, for example, has estimated that the probability of obtaining any kind of universe at all capable of supporting life is roughly 1 chance in 10^(10^123). … The implication for the universe, therefore, is intuitively obvious — there is an intelligent mind behind the universe that designed its parameters to support life.
Yes, it’s intuitively obvious. The Discoveroids have made that claim about Penrose before, and we wrote about it in Discoveroids Embrace Fine Tuning Argument, but we could never track down where Penrose actually said it — or what his evidence was. As we wrote back then regarding the alleged improbability of things:
[W]e prefer the Olympian gods as an explanation. That theory has nearly 3,000 years of solid documentation — easily going back to the Iliad, and the Olympian gods are a far more attractive explanation than some creepy designer who sneaks around tinkering with the flagellum.
Anyway, then the rev says:
Modern science, however, is heavily influenced by scientism, the philosophical belief that science explains everything. It is atheism dressed up in a lab coat.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve often said that the Discoveroids have repackaged their creationist dogma into an ostensibly secular concept which they claim is a scientific theory. Despite ID’s complete lack of any scientific attributes, they promote it 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. And now, the Discoveroids are attempting to flip things around to claim that science is atheism in a lab coat. This is great stuff! After that, the rev tells us:
Consequently, the idea of a mind behind the universe is simply not an option, no matter how powerful the scientific evidence. [They have evidence?] There is only one other way events with such mind-bogglingly low probabilities could occur: there must be a near-infinite number of universes.
Lordy, lordy. Now the rev is going to saddle all of us with the multiverse concept, as if it were an inevitable component of evolution theory. He continues:
The multiverse, it seems, is modern science’s “god of the gaps”: if it is too wildly improbable, if we have no natural explanation — especially if the circumstances appear to point to God — then the multiverse must have done it. [Hee hee!] The interesting thing is this: an infinite number of unseen, untestable entities are proposed to avoid just One Unseen Mind behind the universe which scientism must deny at all costs. One might be reminded of Ockham’s razor at this point.
This is fantastic creationism! We’re not even half way through the rev’s post, but the rest of it merely elaborates on what he’s already said — evolution is statistically impossible, so the choice is between the Discoveroids’ intelligent designer — blessed be he! — or the evolutionists’ multiverse. Therefore, intelligent design is the logical choice.
Now it’s up to you, dear reader. Are you finally going to accept the existence of the intelligent designer, or will you go on imagining that this virtually impossible reality is one of an aaargh-zillion possibilities in the multiverse?
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.