Even More Darwinist Hypocrisy

So, why is the universe the way it is?  It seems fine-tuned for life.  Tweaking any number of universal constants by even small amounts would lead to a universe where life is not viable, or worse yet, a universe that collapses back in on itself.  Other possibilities include universes that can not form heavy elements and many other undesirable outcomes if you want to be alive.  So, why is our universe so unique?

Perhaps it isn’t unique.  Perhaps there are many universes out there and ours is not special.  If you have enough universes out there, it would be unsurprising to find one that is capable of sustaining life.  In fact, if there are infinite universes out there, it’s just about inevitable that life would have to arise in at least one of them.

Some scientists claim that we are living in just one of many universes and they call this the multiverse theory.  They claim that this is a scientific theory that explains away the fine tuning that is evident in our own universe.  The problem is that it’s not testable.  How are we going to test alternate universes when our scientific methods are constrained to this universe?  These same scientists will tell you that ID is not scientific because it is not testable (a claim that I and others have refuted, but materialists still make the claim).  So, ID is not science because it is untestable, but the multiverse theory is science even though it too is untestable?  This is nothing more than a double standard.

Nature reports:

Susskind, too, finds it “deeply, deeply troubling” that there’s no way to test the principle. But he is not yet ready to rule it out completely. “It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science,” he says.

(Geoff Brumfiel, “Outrageous Fortune,” Nature, Vol 439:10-12 (January 5, 2006) (emphasis added).)

If an ID proponent made such a claim, you’d never see it printed in Nature.

How true.  Even worse, if an ID proponent made such a claim, Darwinists would repeat the quote over and over until eternity as proof that ID is not science.  Once again, we see the Darwinist’s worldview trumping all else.

Advertisements

8 responses to “Even More Darwinist Hypocrisy

  1. I can’t find the original article, though I read it a few weeks ago. There is mathematical support for the Many Worlds Conjecture, though as I can’t find the original, I can’t elaborate.

    What I’m actually taking the time to post is because of the terminology used. I find it very troubling that physicists are conflating the scientific definition of “theory” with the layman’s definition. Take for instance “String Theory,” which is currently, at best, an hypothesis. Multiverse “theories” are really more conjectures – I wish they’d call them that.

  2. 21 hours apart isn’t a double-post, is it? :p

    I read through most of the comments on the mensdaily link. Post 22, by Oleg, caught my attention (sorry, I don’t know how to make an embedded link with wordpress):
    http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/09/the-double-standard-for-intelligent-design-and-testability/#comment-57619

    I tracked down the link to the document at Sal’s site for your enjoyment:
    http://smartaxes.com/idea_in_nature.html

  3. Mark,
    The number of links you had in your post is what caught the spam filter. I went ahead and approved it.

    Oleg has posted here before and he’s pretty good at making off the cuff remarks that fall apart under closer inspection. He contends that Nature has published an article about ID, so there is no double standard, but that’s not quite what Luskin said, is it? Luskin talked about how Nature allows for the multiverse theory apologists to state point blank that it is not testable yet still claim that it is science, and they get a sympathetic treatment. This is what would be unbelievable to find in Nature if it came from the ID side.

  4. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    You’re wrong. Sal Cordova was given enough space to tell your side of the argument. More than Susskind, in any event. Here are some key ‘graphs. (And don’t be paranoid, it falls under fair use.)

    “I have a great deal of respect for the scientific method,” Cordova tells his attentive audience as he outlines the case for intelligent design. Broadly speaking, he says, the concept is that a divine hand has shaped the course of evolution. The arguments are familiar ones to both advocates and opponents of the idea: some biological systems are too complex, periodic explosions in the fossil record too large, and differences between species too great to be explained by natural selection alone. Cordova — who holds three degrees from the university, the most recent one in mathematics — argues that the development of life on Earth would be described better if an intelligent creator is added to the mix…

    “I have a great deal of respect for the scientific method,” Cordova tells his attentive audience as he outlines the case for intelligent design. Broadly speaking, he says, the concept is that a divine hand has shaped the course of evolution. The arguments are familiar ones to both advocates and opponents of the idea: some biological systems are too complex, periodic explosions in the fossil record too large, and differences between species too great to be explained by natural selection alone. Cordova — who holds three degrees from the university, the most recent one in mathematics — argues that the development of life on Earth would be described better if an intelligent creator is added to the mix.

  5. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    Copy-and-paste error. The second paragraph should be

    Back in the student union, Cordova is carefully pointing out what intelligent design can, and can’t, do. The concept makes no attempts to verify the creation myth or other major biblical events, such as the flood, he says. Nor does it worry about whether Earth is a few thousand years old, as most creationists believe, or four-and-a-half billion years old, the current geological estimate. Intelligent design, Cordova notes, does not even attempt to prove the type of deity involved, it just points to some sort of supernatural intervention. In other words, he says: “Intelligent design doesn’t have any theology to it.”

  6. I fail to see how I am wrong. Nowhere did I say (nor did Luskin) that Nature wouldn’t have an article about ID. If you care to actually read what was written, you’ll see that you are arguing for something completely different.

    The double standard comes into play in that Multiverse theory is held as scientific even though it is completely untestable. We have Susskind admitting as much and making the statement quoted above. Yet, if an ID proponent were to say the same thing, there would not be the same treatment. It would be hailed as, ‘ID is unscientific, they even say so.’ No one would be clamoring that we ought to investigate ID because it might be right…it’s hard to find someone who will actually admit that it very well might be right. Yet, multiverse theory gets a pass for being untestable and ID is criticized and called unscientific for the erroneous claims that it is also untestable. Do you not see the difference? This is a textbook case of a double standard and your attempts to move the goalposts are not fooling me.

  7. Testibility and falsifiability are not the only metrics of what is and what is not science. As I said in my first post, there is mathematical support for the Many Worlds version of the multiverse. I’ve read some more on it now, so I can expound more on it this evening.

    Many Worlds is one particular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. QM is, arguably, one of the most successful frameworks (theories) in the history of physics. But it requires some truely bizzare and paradoxical things to happen: wave/particle duality, superposition of states, wavefunction collapse, etc. Physicists, especially of the philosophical bent, have been trying to make sense of these paradoxes. A number of possibilities have been proposed: The Copenhagen Interpretation, the Many Worlds, Ensemble, etc. There’s a very nice breakdown of the different QM interpretations on wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

    So, really, this entire series of (unfortunate) events seems to be about a string of misunderstandings. There is no “multiverse theory;” there is an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics known as the Many Worlds Interpretation that “fixes” most of the absurdities of QM.

  8. Mark,

    Testibility and falsifiability are not the only metrics of what is and what is not science.

    Only when the “science” in question is not ID you mean.

    I’ve read some more on it now, so I can expound more on it this evening.

    I’m glad that you read up on it before you argued for it…oh wait.

    So, really, this entire series of (unfortunate) events seems to be about a string of misunderstandings. There is no “multiverse theory;” there is an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics known as the Many Worlds Interpretation that “fixes” most of the absurdities of QM.

    Whatever one calls it, is it testable? Is it verifiable? Is it falsifiable? Is it science? The answer to all those questions is a resounding, “No.” Yet, scientists are clinging to it regardless of that fact. Why is that? Meanwhile, ID is testable, falsifiable, and verifiable, yet materialists say it is not science because they falsely claim that it is not any of those things. I don’t see how you can honestly claim that this is not a double standard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s