Wednesday, December 20, 2006

The same tired old arguments...

I'm a little perturbed this morning. I came across a book on that I thought might be interesting (God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist) and noted a critique by someone named Michael A. Corey, PhD. The same tired old arguments. He writes,

"Where do the laws of nature come from?

The above-stated question is purported to have been answered by the author himself, but it is this very question that shows that there HAD to have been a Higher Power at work in the nascent universe, because modern cosmology has clearly demonstrated that the laws of nature all materialized instantly just a few microseconds after the initial Bang. In other words, these life-enabling laws didn't gradually evolve randomly by a process of natural selection over eons of cosmic time. Instead, they emerged out of the Big Bang almost instantly, fully formed and fine-tuned to produce intelligent life some 14 billion earth years later. This is a fantastic cosmic feat that modern science simply cannot account for in the absence of an Intelligent Designer, who would have single-handedly fine-tuned these natural laws before the Big Bang ever happened. I do not see how a non-theistic explanation could ever do justice to this utterly remarkable fact of modern cosmology. In short, if the author has an effective counterargument for the origin of the laws of nature, let's hear what it is. I seriously doubt that he even has one!"
There are a lot of things wrong with the above statement. For instance, the false dichotomy that I so often see in fundamentalists' arguments that if Science has no answer then it must be due to the supernatural. Phah! Learn how to reason. This was something well pointed out in the Kitzmiller decision authored by Judge Jones. Desperate and outrageously fallacious reasoning, if I can even label it as reasoning to begin with. I have little patience for such inanity.

Next. This backwards idea that the universe was fine-tuned for life. Let's try again, but put the words in the right order... It is LIFE that is fine-tuned for the universe we find ourselves in, not the other way round!

But it's so obvious that there must have been a designer! Oh, my, us silly scientists! How could we be so obtuse and myopic? The veil hath been lifted from mine eyes!

C'mon, dude. If it was so obvious (or even true) we'd drop Science altogether and bow down and pray with you. We're interested only in the truth, no matter where it leads. Unless, of course, it's all been an atheist plot to take over the world and rule hedonistically for all time! Mu-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!

As to the original question he posed, one of the posters correctly replied that "the laws of physics can be derived from very basic concepts such as symmetry and gauge invariance." Boom.

Michael A. Corey, PhD. Notice any similarity to Kent Hovind, PhD (who is Hovind
)? Why is it people that get their unaccredited degrees have such a need to have them taken seriously? Bet (like Hovind) that he's listed in the phone book with his degree. I'm not. And just how does a PhD in the "Philosophy of Science and Religion" qualify its holder to be taken seriously on scientific discourse? Funny, I didn't see one single degree in Science available on The Union Institute website....

But you know what really bothers me about this? He can't have read the book! It won't be out till January.

You've moved me to buying it, Michael. I'll review it and let you know if you should buy it, too.

No comments: