Eric Hedin’s Book Explains the Whole Universe

You know who Eric Hedin is. We’ve been writing a lot about him lately — most recently Exciting Information about Eric Hedin’s Book. Years ago he was at the center of a storm we called the Ball State Imbroglio, when it was revealed that he was introducing Oogity Boogity into his course on the “Boundaries of Science” at Ball State University, Now he’s found a haven at the Discovery Institute.

You’ll be thrilled to learn that the Discoveroids have a new post about him at their creationist blog. The thing is titled Physicist Eric Hedin: Cosmology Points to Cosmic Design. It was written by Jonathan Witt, described at the end as: “a senior fellow and senior project manager with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.”

You’re obviously in for a treat, so let’s get started. Here are some excerpts from the Discoveroids’ post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

On a new ID the Future episode [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], host Eric Anderson continues his conversation with physicist and Canceled Science author Eric Hedin. Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]

Here’s the Amazon link to Hedin’s book, Canceled Science. As we’ve previously informed you, it was published by the prestigious Discovery Institute Press. Okay, let’s move along. Jonathan Witt says:

Hedin argues that the dogmatic rule that natural science should only ever invoke natural causes has at its heart a logical problem.

Ooooooooooooh! Hedin’s right! Why shouldn’t science include supernatural causes? It’s dogmatic and illogical to do otherwise. After that stunning revelation, Jonathan Witt tells us:

He and Anderson also review some startling cases [Startling!] of fine-tuning for life and why a “theory of everything” would not solve the fine-tuning problem for atheists but merely move it back to the theory of everything itself.

We’re not quite sure what that’s all about, but if Hedin says it, you know it’s great creation science! The Discoveroid post continues:

Also in the conversation, a highly accessible survey of how scientists came to realize that the universe isn’t eternal but has a beginning.

Well, the expansion of the universe had a beginning. As for what was going on prior to that, maybe Hedin knows. Let’s read on:

Hedin also tackles a theological poser: If the universe was designed for life, why did the designer wait nine billion plus years to create the first life?

Good question. Hey, maybe the universe isn’t old after all! And now we come to the end:

It’s all material explored in Hedin’s new book, Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See, available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other online booksellers.

Okay, dear reader, we know you’re intrigued, so go ahead and buy the book. It was published by the Discoveroids, so you can’t go wrong!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

11 responses to “Eric Hedin’s Book Explains the Whole Universe

  1. “the dogmatic rule that natural science should only ever invoke natural causes”
    Jonny Witt is right that this rule is dogmatic (if I may stretch the meaning of this word a bit). Natural science invoking supernatural causes ceases to be natural science – it becomes Oogity Boogity.

    “the fine-tuning problem for atheists”
    Isn’t it remarkable that only IDiots (Ol’Hambo and co can’t afford to talk about this anyway) think this a problem for atheists? Let me paraphraze Herman Philipse once again. Saying that the universe is fine-tuned for human life seems to be more absurd than the claim put forward by a little lonely fly in the White House that this building was constructed especially to provide a nice landing place for it.

  2. chris schilling

    “Natural science.”

    Bugger off. You don’t get to claim something is natural if you profess belief in a supernatural source. This isn’t just semantics; if anything, it’s an ontological distinction worth making. (Yes, I know: theists get to have their supernatural cake and eat it, too).

    “[W]hy did the designer wait nine billion plus years to create the first life?”

    Low achiever.

  3. Let’s say that there is no explanation in terms of nature for totality of the universe. Should we be surprised, or disappointed, or should we expect that there is an explanation from beyond the nature?
    Or might be just be accepting that we don’t know everything?

  4. Dave Luckett

    The real problem that science has with invoking the supernatural as an explanation is that it’s a dead end. It provides no explanation of cause, nothing that can be applied elsewhere, no advance, no understanding. It’s not that science cannot stand the idea that there may be supernatural causes, it’s that science cannot study them, shed light upon them, comprehend them. As soon as you say “God did it”, there is nothing more to say.

    Further, if you’re asked why God did it, any answer or none at all will do. You can just shrug and say “God moves in mysterious ways”, and that’s as good an answer as any. So is chris schilling’s response to “why did the designer wait nine billion years to create the first life?” Another response could be “Time? What is time to God? Nine billion years or an instant is the same to Him.”

    The writer of 2 Peter, whoever that was, made much the same argument as an apologia for Jesus’s not returning. It was no explanation then, and it has only grown more mouldy in the time since.

    But science – science wants an explanation.

  5. I had hoped that you’d buy the book & review it for us!

  6. One may ask the same question about space: why billions of light years of space?
    When we hear the wind blowing on Mars from the microphones on Perseverance, think of all of those years that those winds were blowing, unheard.
    Why were those many species of hominins, only to go extinct?

  7. chris schilling

    @DaveL: “[A]s an apologia for Jesus’s not returning.”

    As Father Bob Maguire, the maverick Roman Catholic of Melbourne once said: “He’s not coming back, you know, Jesus.”

    But tardigrades can!

    (When asked, “What happens after death, Father Bob?” Maguire responded: “Buggered if I know. Who the hell cares? It’s all a load of crap, anyway”).

    Who will mourn us, when our species goes extinct? No-one, not even the tardigrades.

  8. Dave Luckett

    If Fr Maguire said that about Jesus not returning, chris, he’s in heresy. He should drop the honorific right now, and cease claiming to be a Catholic priest. Unlike creationism, a belief that Jesus “will return to judge the quick and the dead” is dogma. To deny it is to be outside the Church.

    He’s probably right, though, and also right to say that he doesn’t know about death. Kung Fu-tse said much the same; “Not know life. How know death?” But as for asking who the hell cares, I do, for one. Doesn’t mean I believe in heaven or hell, and what I think is most likely is nothing at all. But I can’t deny I care about it.

  9. @TomS: “Should we …..”
    This (I expect you to be aware of this) has been answered by philosophers since a long time. Every natural explanation requires an explanation and a further, deeper natural explanation always remains possible. The Big Bang is a typical example. So if we want to avoid infinite regress we have to stop somewhere. Those who can’t accept that are like

    – never satisfied. Except that they won’t transform into butterflies.

  10. Dave Luckett

    The next thread having started, I shall only note my instant, and uncharacteristic, accord with FrankB. The argument for God as cause causans is the only one I’ve come across that makes much impression on me, and it’s still somewhat begging the question. But still, as FrankB says, the alternative to a Prime Cause is infinite causal regression, and I must confess that nonplusses me. The Universe itself is infinite in neither time nor space. Why should the causes of all events within it be so?

    Combine that with the argument from immediate skeptical rejection of any and all claimed manifestation of God, and the sum is uncertainty.

  11. @Dave Luckett
    Aristotle believed that the universe was infinite in time. I will be so bold as to say that no one before the 19th century had a clear conception of infinity.