…and this is a 
Which one of you little rascals Sokaled AiG?
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 28, 2008 8:39 AM, by PZ Myers
Answers in Genesis started this so-called peer reviewed journal called Answers, and the latest publication therein is such a confused mess that I'm wondering if it could be a hoax. Here's the abstract, but I think just the title alone would be sufficient to tell this is codified lunacy: An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance.
Because one is tangible and the other intangible, the physical and metaphysical are generally treated separately. But this dichotomy is illogical; at the very least it is inconsistent with reality, for the two are inseparable. A basic introduction to the principle issues in quantum physics is provided to stress two points: (1) our physical reality consists mostly of empty space, electromagnetic energy, and information; and (2) the metaphysical implications of nonlocality as evidenced by studies in entanglement, quantum teleportation, and zero-point energy. Then the impossibility of three critical events is addressed: the spontaneous ex nihilo appearance of an exploding mass via its own nonexistent energy, the spontaneous generation of organic life from inorganic nonlife, and the spontaneous generation of a complex metaphysical reality from physical matter. This leads to an apology for the necessity of a creator.
Finally, a theory is set forth that reconciles inorganic, organic, and animated matter with the metaphysical realities of both the creator and the created. By coupling the metaphysical implications of quantum physics with the biblical understanding of God's attributes, the thesis is set forth that our immediate physical reality--consisting of empty space, electromagnetic energy, and information--is basically a hologram depiction of God's intent. God spoke and it was so. Since creation, God's Spirit has continued to energize and interact with the universe in an entangled nature at the quantum level. Similarly, the individual metaphysical reality (the spirit) of each animated being interacts with its individual corporal body via this same entangled nature at the subatomic level.
Man being created in the image of God, freewill, the existence of evil, and redemption are also addressed. And finally, because man is a special creature created in God's image, it follows that man, merely by intent, has within him the ability, at least in a limited capacity, to cause change to his environment, this holographic reality; thus biblical healings and miracles occur. This concept could also provide an explanation for certain other human-generated phenomenon.
It's a long, rambling piece of nonsense which uses the author's personal disbelief in evolution (formed as a young child!) as evidence, misrepresents many scientific theories (the Big Bang was a fiery explosion, evolution is a process to generate a metaphysically aware being), throws up Jesus as a scientific catch-all explanation, and ends in a flurry of Bible quotes. It's incoherent; calling it a collection of musings would dignify it far too much, and imply more logic to his babbling than can be found there.
Here's a perfect example of the kind of irrational leaps I'm talking about.
There currently exist a number of people who believe the Great Pyramids of Egypt were built by aliens to serve as navigational devices--an outlandish claim to be sure, but actually no more unwarranted than is Darwin's evolution. One could argue their evidence and reasoning is as solid as that of Darwinism. What if a group of archaeologists were to take up this hypothesis and say: "Because some ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs seem to speak of bright lights and beings from the sky who taught technology; and because some of the giant stones, perfectly placed hundreds of feet high, weigh as much as 20 tons; we have concluded that the Great Pyramids of Egypt were constructed by aliens; and unless this can be proved incorrect we shall accept it as fact." No one in their right mind would take them seriously. Yet this is exactly what Darwin's proponents have done. From very sparse, selective, and controversial evidence at best, they have set forth the argument of a noncomplex universe in which simple life-forms slowly evolved into more advanced life-forms; and they expect it to be accepted as fact unless it can be proven wrong.
Wait … but these "Darwinists" are the ones who are arguing that extant, natural mechanisms led to the evolution of life on earth; we aren't postulating alien intervention or a divine hand. It's the creationists who, with no evidence, are proposing that the difficulty and complexity of biology means they can conclude that life was constructed by a designer deity. The author is blissfully unaware of the irony of his example.
The whole thing is a fact-free mess like that, and I'd have to spend the next few weeks ripping this up if I wanted to be thorough. I'd rather not. You're all smart people, you can go laugh at the inanity without a tour guide.
Actually, it is so bad that I rather doubt that any of you are responsible for the article, despite some earlier talk when the journal was announced that someone should submit a pseudo-scholarly article to fake them out. Admit it, if you thought about it, no matter how briefly, you probably also were thinking that the hard part would be making the stupidity subtle enough that it would get past the AiG "reviewers". Who would have thought you could just grab a collection of the dumbest things Kent Hovind or his ilk have said, slap them together with no sense of order, and polish out the corn-pone language, and presto, publishable creationist paper?
Comments
There's a debate with creationists going on on Slashdot at the moment over an article posted this morning about evolution.
I'm just plain depressed after seeing people trying to refute evolution with comments like this, AFTER having had some things explained to them by others:
"Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day."
Please explain to me then why it is clearly outlined in the first chapter of the bible that there are seven seperate days? Are each of these "a long time" and are they all of different length? Reading the text literally in either Hebrew or English does not give the slightest indication of that.
So please explain to me then, why is it clearly outlined that each seperate day has a different purpose? These days are sequential, they are not concurrent. The general scientific view of the origin of species, the origin of the universe and the origin of life is that all these things are happening at the same time. Man and mammals all evolved concurrently and continue to evolve, who knows when another intelligence species will popup at any time, right?
Please explain to me why there would be millions of years of death before the first man of today? For a God that is perfect, surely a world that is "very good" (as mentioned in Genesis 1:31) would not have millenia of death, suffering, disease and killing as science entails?"
"Genesis 1. If interpreted literally, like it is within the protestant church, implies that Earth and it's life was created in 6 days and on the 7th day, God rested. Regardless of whether other people interpret it metaphorically or whatever, this is a serious claim.
Such a claim should be investigated and not rejected at its face value. That is all that I am trying to say. As I said before, since the origin of species is a forensic science, you must keep all the doors open. Many claim that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. However, many scientists and normal people alike disagree.
These things alone should be reason enough to atleast investigate intelligent design (or atleast that the world was created rapidly). The question is, if the world was created so quickly, is science capable of explaining such things? How could you determine such a thing in experiments?
This guy was raised a creationist and complains about people being "force-fed evolution."
Who was force fed?
Posted by: Craig | February 28, 2008 8:50 AM
oops. sorry, that didnt look so long in the preview.
Posted by: Craig | February 28, 2008 8:51 AM
I see that "Sokal" has now become a verb, as in "Who Sokaled AIG?" I wish someone would make a verb out of my name.
Or, as Calvin once said to Hobbes, "I like to verb words... Verbing weirds language."
Posted by: Kimpatsu | February 28, 2008 8:52 AM
What psychobabble crap! I couldn't even finish reading
that insane bullshit! Good grief, is there no end to this
rampant insanity?
Posted by: Holbach | February 28, 2008 8:55 AM
well it's "peer-reviewed", alright
nobody ever said something about the nature of the peers though
Posted by: X. Wolp | February 28, 2008 8:56 AM
It's a classical example of a "two gods" argument.
One one hand, they have a sublime metaphysical being who fills the gaps that science (supposedly) can't.
On the other hand, they have their virgin-raping earth-flooding fig-tree-smiting superman, who (much like Santa Claus) leaves eternal life in their stocking.
How exactly do they make the leap from "the necessity of a creator" to "Jeeebus is Lorrrrrrrrrd!!!!!!"?
Posted by: hyperdeath | February 28, 2008 8:57 AM
Damn. Someone beat me to it? But my paper on the Noachian water canopy isn't done yet!
Posted by: Zeno | February 28, 2008 8:57 AM
"Admit it, if you thought about it, no matter how briefly, you probably also were thinking that the hard part would be making the stupidity subtle enough that it would get past the AiG 'reviewers'."
LOL!!! Its funny cause its true. I contemplated making up some sort of rediculous argument and submitting it... but after downloading their format info stuff, I decided it wasnt worth the time.
It would be funny, but not THAT funny.
Posted by: Zachary Kroger | February 28, 2008 9:01 AM
I may be way off, but the more I read the various creationist attempts the more it seems to me they're mentally stuck in highschool. It seems like they think copying the format of a piece of writing is the same thing as presenting something solid: Referring to things that others have wrote seems to equate to being well informed. It's kind of interesting, and a little frightening.
Posted by: Kimbits | February 28, 2008 9:02 AM
I don't know... it's got that Timecube level of crazy where the individual just might believe it. I was certain that Fred Phelps was a joke (although a less literate one) when I first heard about him.
kimpatsu: (v.) To be jealous of someone else's name being turned into a verb.
Posted by: chancelikely | February 28, 2008 9:04 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 28, 2008 9:09 AM
"thus biblical healings and miracles occur."
Wow. Most Christian apologists are busily making up excuses for why miracles and healing do not occur (we don't have enough faith, god does not like being tested etc), but this fellow is going the opposite way: He deduces that miracles and healings must occur (and I guess we just must not be observing them, or it's part of the Evil Scitheist Conspiracy to cover up all such events)
Posted by: Jason Failes | February 28, 2008 9:10 AM
No, no, kimpatsu is a kind of Korean delicacy involving pickled squid.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 28, 2008 9:11 AM
Please explain to me why four of those days are named after Germanic gods and the other three are named after astronomical objects/Greco-Roman gods.
Actually, I'd like to know that. Somehow it always slipped my notice that Saturn was the odd god out.
Posted by: Abbie | February 28, 2008 9:22 AM
(Apologies to Paul Simon)
...
but I would not be convicted by a jury of my peers
Still crazy after all these years, LAWD still crazy
after all these years
...
Hmm, so if if we were made in god's image, s/he may simply be schitzophrenic (A point alluded to by hyperdeath)
Posted by: dNorrisM | February 28, 2008 9:23 AM
If anything this is a theology paper. But it doesn't look particularly good.
C-
Posted by: Paul Phoenix | February 28, 2008 9:23 AM
If it's not a hoax, there's a Christian wordprocessing (called CrossWord?) package with a 'bullshitizer' function?
Posted by: Peter Mc | February 28, 2008 9:24 AM
Good science. Really moves us forward. I look forward to our engineering colleagues making full use of this work to revolutionise medical science and other technology.
Bravo.
NOT.
Posted by: Rationalist | February 28, 2008 9:26 AM
#14--
and the moral of that story is: don't mess with Saturn.
he'll eat you for breakfast.
they don't call him saturnine for nothing.
(he has to pay them to do it).
Posted by: kid bitzer | February 28, 2008 9:29 AM
My favourite piece of pyramidiocy:
If you mark the positions of the three pyramids on a map and then draw lines between the apexes, it forms a triangle.
Nobody can argue with that. Very profound.
Posted by: hinschelwood | February 28, 2008 9:31 AM
#15--
no, no--we're made in his *image*,
so that means we're just *images*,
so that explains why we're all *holograms*.
weren't you paying attention at all?
Posted by: kid bitzer | February 28, 2008 9:31 AM
... what a depressing load of mental effluent.
I tried to confirm some of the refs that had links - but alas, not one was accessible or they led to websites of organizations that did not provide further access to the actual "works" cited.
Yes, I was surprised...
Does anybody know who the author is ? There's no info on any affiliation..
Posted by: Umilik | February 28, 2008 9:36 AM
hinschel: What about pyramids that are built next to each other? Wouldn't they form a line?
Posted by: Kerlyssa | February 28, 2008 9:42 AM
...Earth and it's life was created in 6 days and on the 7th day, God rested.
So, this god thing rested, obviously because it was tired, eh! So the bugger can't be perfect, yet the religiots claim that it is. Fools! Furthermore, if it took that long to create the Earth, including the rest of the Solar System, what about the galaxy, & 100 billion other galaxies - that'd take at least 10^22 days = 2.7^19 years, which is billions of times more than the age of the universe. Idiots!
And man was created in the god thing's image, they say. That bit kinda figures - their god thing's a thoroughly nasty bit of work according their bible book.
Posted by: Richard Harris | February 28, 2008 9:43 AM
Sounds like Vogon poetry to me.
Posted by: Anon | February 28, 2008 9:48 AM
I'm worried it might be standing on the shoulders of giants. Wasn't there a similarly revolutionary paper in the 'Journal of Applied Fairyology' last month? You know the same issue with the compelling paper on the hypothesis that Elvis is trapped in 11-dimensional space somewhere.
Posted by: Paul Phoenix | February 28, 2008 9:49 AM
Kerlyssa:
Shhhh. Don't spoil it. I like this fact so much, I don't want anything like reality to get in the way.
Posted by: hinschelwood | February 28, 2008 9:49 AM
No, no, no! It's Japanese for "Blonde hair" (well, close enough) :)
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | February 28, 2008 9:50 AM
Somehow it always slipped my notice that Saturn was the odd god out.
Only in English. Given the habits of the rest of the English language, it's really not surprising that it makes no sense.
Of course, English being God's own language (KJV), you could probably have the fundies going round in circles on that one forever.
Posted by: Graculus | February 28, 2008 9:53 AM
I do not understand quantum physics. I necessarily do not, for were I to make the opposite claim that I do understand quantum physics it would be self-contradictory. Oh well.
So, since no one can claim to understand quantum physics without being self-contradictory, how is it that we can talk about it at all without everything we say being mere speculation?
Because, in fact, we do understand quantum physics to some extent, but because we're intellectually honest we do not claim to understand it fully and completely. We claim to understand it tentatively, which is rational and responsible. It is this admission of tentative understanding which separates the scientist and the scientifically-minded from the crackpot.
Creationists (and myriad others) are crackpots in this regard. They will take the feeblest grasp of understanding quantum concepts such as superposition and symmetry breaking and entanglement and confidently proclaim such nonsense as "See? This proves mind-body dualism!" i.e. the existence of the "soul", or of consciousness independent of brain activity, or "This proves there must be a sky-daddy that simply thought the universe into existence."
Balderdash. Quantum physics only shows that the fundamentals of our existence are deeper than we have yet imagined. Which means of course that we have much yet to learn.
I don't know how the universe came into existence. I don't know the answers to thousands of other grand questions. I may learn some of these answers some day, or I may not. It doesn't matter. It is the ability to make that simple, honest admission "I don't know" that allows me the peace of mind to live in an uncertain world. It is the fear of uncertainty that compels people to embrace religion and then rip off science as a cloak for their insecurity. A sad spectacle, indeed.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | February 28, 2008 9:54 AM
Man being created in the image of God, freewill, the existence of evil, and redemption are also addressed. And finally, because man is a special creature created in God's image, it follows that man, merely by intent, has within him the ability, at least in a limited capacity, to cause change to his environment, this holographic reality; thus biblical healings and miracles occur. This concept could also provide an explanation for certain other human-generated phenomenon.
Hey, it's nice to see someone isn't afraid to use the word MAN to describe us human inhabitants of the planet. Woooooo!
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 28, 2008 9:57 AM
That whole thing REEKS of Ex Post Facto arguments.
re: Zero Point Energy -- hasn't that been summarily dismissed by most research? I know that one crackpot lady who did the "What the bleep do we know" movie is a big advocate of ZPE, but I thought she was debunked...
Did you notice how the paragraphs take on the traditional rhythm of AiG articles? (not surprisingly of course)
- Premise
- Premise
- Premise ...
- Red Herring / Straw Man conclusion at end of paragraph
I call it "Fallacy En Passant" (TM)
Posted by: Aaron | February 28, 2008 10:08 AM
Creating Christian buzz and brain damage thru the magic of buzzwords - a variant of linguistic determinism/framing.
The "incommensurables" finally commensurated and presented for our bamboozlement.
The site & geologist Snelling appear to be genuine.
One rather obvious observation & more than a nit:
Here is the last sentence from the abstract;
"This concept could also provide an explanation for certain other human-generated phenomenon."
How could such a glaring misuse of "phenomenon" for phenomena (especially in this context) so easily pass careful editing and review, especially in such a world shaking assertive paper using science as the vehicle?
It is highly improbable that any competent & sophisticated scientist, knowledgable in quantum physics, could make such a serious error?
It is highly unlikely that a Sokal spoofer would expose his arse so obviously.
The great success of the new age farce, "What the Bleep ..."
has not been lost on the Christian framer boys & girls.
Posted by: gerald spezio | February 28, 2008 10:15 AM
It really is like a cargo cult, isn't it? "If we build something which looks like an airfield, planes will come and bring things to us." "If we write something which has the form of a scientific paper, truth will be created and make us right."
Posted by: Ted D | February 28, 2008 10:21 AM
Hahahahaha!
The section drivelling on about "When I was but a small boy, I was wont to gaze in wonderment at the stars" is hilarious whether or not it's intended ironically.
The other paper there - which insofar as I can be arsed to read it claims that retroviruses were put in our genomes by the Creator but have escaped and given us AIDS since the Fall - is even funnier.
Posted by: MissPrism | February 28, 2008 10:26 AM
Force-feeding evolution requires proper tools
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2008/02/juggernaut-bite.html
Posted by: Russell Seitz | February 28, 2008 10:29 AM
#23 Kerlyssa: "Wouldn't they form a line?"
The three pyramids at Gizeh aren't actually in a perfectly straight line (some people have used this to claim that they represent an Earthly depiction of Orion's belt) so technically you could, I'm guessing, make a triangle from them, but it would be a very odd-looking one.
The fact that the creationists are looking at this shows nothing more than that they're as bent out of shape as are the pyramids! LoL!
Posted by: Ian | February 28, 2008 10:38 AM
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | February 28, 2008 10:45 AM
I am telling you all now, this will be the next effort by creationists. ID is gone because it has been ruled out in the courts for being too much like religion, but this will replace it, at least the first couple sections of this. It will be genuine physics with some metaphysical crap sprinkled in.
Posted by: Carl | February 28, 2008 10:52 AM
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I'm willing to bet that this is the first ever paper, scientific, pseudo-scientific, or just plain batshit crazy talk where this sentence appeared as the last line in the concluding statement. Judging by my scanning of the rest of the paper, I would guess it's the reader's own eyes and dental work that are set to suffer.
Posted by: Kampar | February 28, 2008 10:52 AM
Plenty of questions remain in cosmology, so I don't think that some skepticism regarding it is out of order (not that Allen's "skepticism" counts for anything).
But there's nothing mysterian about biological evolution at all. Basically, it's old-fashioned Newtonian science (with a little QM thrown in today), in line with "God's laws," or however else the creationists want to portray the order of the universe.
This idiot is relying on the mysterious matters in cosmology to pretend that there is something mysterious about biological evolution.
I could, just for the sake of argument, concede everything in cosmology as being so much woo like his Bible is, and still I'd be pointing out that evolution is all cause and effect reasoning, much like Newton's laws gravity or of motion. The complexity is much greater, yes, but the simple fact of relationship was recognized even prior to modern science. Now we have the genetic evidence that solidly establishes the relatedness of all life, making even relatedness less mysterious than when medievalists recognized it.
This is standard practice for creationists/IDists, and part of the steaming plate of dogshit that Ben Stein's trying to serve to us. Point to mysteries in the universe, and pretend that evolution is a part of the remaining mysteries. Well, in its basics, evolution really isn't mysterious at all, it can be seen as one of the simplest inferences of all that life is alike because it is related via normal reproduction, and it is also one of the best established small-t truths in science.
If it's a Sokal-hoax, it's a waste of time, because this variety of weed grow rank and profuse from the pile of dung that is creationism.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 28, 2008 10:56 AM
Pretty much anybody who has been paying attention. That's the entire modus operandi of the creationist movement in a nutshell.
Posted by: Dunc | February 28, 2008 11:01 AM
"...some people have used this to claim that they represent an Earthly depiction of Orion's belt..."
Oh, really? Some ancient Egyptians looked up in the sky and said, "Hey, you know what? Those three stars look like the belt of that hunter guy from that story the Greek guy told us"? Hmm, intriguing.
Posted by: speedwell | February 28, 2008 11:05 AM
Since physics and especially High Energy Physics is my hobby, I did keep reading through the morass. It starts sad with the author's misinterpretations to fit a preconceived metaphysics. But eventually you do get the quote that really does explain everything, "In time I learned that logic can never convince passion. Irrespective of one's education, without a purposed conscious intervention, one's passion transcends one's logic and reason." A-ha, now I understand.
Posted by: Wade | February 28, 2008 11:17 AM
Teh only reason you sciencey smarteypants can't understand the finer points of holographic reality, is that you were not homeschooled.
It really doesn't matter that much, though. The rapture is in 2012, so then you'll see for yourselfs. (This is also known as the moment of disentanglement to our scientism experters.) God is awesome!
Posted by: ennui | February 28, 2008 11:18 AM
This is that Lynne McTaggart shit I was telling you about. Quantum ignorance. Lawyers and investigative journalists now adjudicate physics. What bullshit. She thinks that quantum particle physics applies on a macro scale. She confuses complex wave function and probability density for her own inductive woo-woo. The only thing authentically void in a zero-point vacuum in McTaggart.
Posted by: danley | February 28, 2008 11:24 AM
I think that you all missed the point, the article was written for semi-literate bible thumping folks south of the Mason Dixon line.
After reading the first paragraph their aching brains deem it to be high fahlootin science stuff that supports their superstitions and they reach for another can of Bud.
That the article is gibberish is irrelevant, so is religion, but as idiotic as the essay is the
average fundie sees it as intellectual support
for their faith.
The pastors who pick the pockets of their prey know the scholastic, intellectual or emotional limitations of the faithful.
Posted by: billybob | February 28, 2008 11:31 AM
The basic question of polysynthesis: "Why noun when you can verb?"
You can borrow energy from the vacuum. That's how radioactive decay works, for example. But you have to pay it back. The longer you want to keep it, the less you can borrow. You can cheat the Law of the Conservation of Energy, but it will get you.
Well, "principle" instead of "principal" (the adjective) got through, too. But then, "tuberocity" got through in Nature. :-|
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 28, 2008 11:34 AM
Can't we just use SCIgen?
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
Posted by: MikeM | February 28, 2008 11:38 AM
Magical imitation: if I act like a scientist I become one! This hearkens back to the paintings of animals on cave walls: if I can picture them, they become mine. Or Cargo Cults. It's really something of a schizophrenic worldview; it truly suffers some of the delusional thinking and paranoia that afflicts some individuals.
Posted by: Pat | February 28, 2008 11:39 AM
#24
"that'd take at least 10^22 days = 2.7^19 years, which is billions of times more than the age of the universe. Idiots!"
I guess that's why we are seeing a dearth of miracles here on earth as of late...It's a little busy on the otherside of the universe. It also explains why it's not answering any of my prayers! (drat)
Posted by: Kay | February 28, 2008 11:48 AM
"A basic introduction to the principle issues in quantum physics is provided"
But not a basic introduction to English spelling.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | February 28, 2008 11:52 AM
Dang, PZ. I think you invented a new sport.
I'm starting a Perl script now to spider creationist papers, slap together sentences, and put a random name at the top.
Posted by: James C. | February 28, 2008 11:54 AM
I stopped at "quantum".
I love physics, I really do, but everybody that goes goggly and metaphysical over the word quantum seriously needs to, as the kids say these days, DIAF.
IMHO the alleged "wierdness" of quantum mechanics is merely a suggestion that our brains only evolved to cope with a certain scale, and beyond that scale our intuition does not serve us. It is the cognitive equivalent of discovering the earth is not the center of the universe: our brains are not "meant" to understand the universe, and to the extent we do, it is a monument to the hard work of many great scientists (and a hell of a lot of students) that we got as far as we did.
There are of course no metaphysical implications to quantum mechanics by definition. QM is physics and in the final analysis rests purely on measurement and experiment. Interpretations of QM are only that: interpretations.
PS for the old farts, DIAF stands for Die In A Fire. See also any videogame-related forum.
Posted by: Zombie | February 28, 2008 12:06 PM
it wasn't me
Posted by: Hipple, Rev. Paul T. | February 28, 2008 12:09 PM
The comments about cargo cults and "acting like a scientist" are right on the money. It reminds me of a Smothers Brothers routine built around the song "The Streets of Laredo." Anyone else remember it? As is usual in a Smothers Brothers performance, they start out singing the song in a straightforward way, then things veer off into insanity (or, perhaps, sanity). The big finish goes like this:
"I see by your outfit that you are a cowboy."
"I see by your outfit you are a cowboy, too."
"We see by our outfits, that we are both cowboys. If you get an outfit you can be a cowboy, too!"
Labcoats, anyone?
Posted by: Zeno | February 28, 2008 12:12 PM
How is:
"we have concluded that the Great Pyramids of Egypt were constructed by aliens; and unless this can be proved incorrect we shall accept it as fact."
different from
"An Intelligent Designer, of unknown identify and origin, initiated life on this planet, and then periodically (we have got a clue of when or how) intervened to ensure that certain teological goals where met in the development of species".
Ya know, when you compare the two, Egyptian Aliens compared with ID "Theory" start to sound quite reasonable...
Posted by: TImcol | February 28, 2008 12:38 PM
#52 (James C.),
I'd love to see that script when you're done with it. I'm a perl fan.
$CX='@l658072wq';print map {reset;;?[];vec (join(keys %_),5,8);} readpipe *CX;2;]??chr:m}l}?chr(ord($_|$/)):chr(length($^T))} unpack 'a2'x5, $CX;
Posted by: CrypticLife | February 28, 2008 12:42 PM
True, the Eqyptians did not name it Orion, but they did recognize it as the same constellation. Can't remember right know it was meant to represent Horus or Osiris, but it was important to them and figured prominantly in their mythology. I don't really see it as a completely ridiculous idea that people would build a representation of the heavens on Earth; even at these grand scales. No, there is no documentation that they intended it to be a representation of those three stars but it is interesting they they are just out of alignmnet just a little bit from a straight line in just about exactly the same proportion as those 3 stars. We know that the Egyptions were very good at alignment so it seems unlikely it is pure chance.
As for "cargo cults"; I think it was Feynman who first applied it to a field that tries to be a science; not by actually doing science but by just imitating the form of science. At the time he was referring to mostly the "social sciences", but this "Creation Science" and "ID" are even better examples.
Posted by: SteveM | February 28, 2008 12:48 PM
Every time I consider trying to send them a Sokal paper, or introducing an absurd sock puppet on UD, I just can't come up with anything that's more absurd than what they already believe.
Ben Stein:
[*shudder*]Posted by: Physicalist | February 28, 2008 1:10 PM
If you substitute "creationists" or "cdesign proponentsists" in for "Darwinists" in the second quotation, it becomes an accurate description of what they believe. They think that, similar to those who believe that aliens helped the Egyptians build the pyramids, that because something impressive exists the only explanation for it is outside intervention. Methinks the creationist doth project too much.
Posted by: Scooty Puff Jr. | February 28, 2008 1:12 PM
So the "editors" of this journal have been warned that hoaxes will be sent? This means that they actually went through this crap and decided that no, this one is a "real" paper... Seems to me that it's a reversed-Sokal situation here: any paper with actual data will be rejected as probable hoaxes.
Posted by: onclepsycho | February 28, 2008 1:14 PM
Every time I consider trying to send them a Sokal paper, or introducing an absurd sock puppet on UD, I just can't come up with anything that's more absurd than what they already believe.
An entire "paper" of spezio "posts" could make for some interesting results....Just cut and paste, it would fit right in with the cdesign proponentsists' techniques.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | February 28, 2008 1:16 PM
True, the Eqyptians did not name it Orion, but they did recognize it as the same constellation.
I did not know that, thanks. Spoilsport. :)
Posted by: speedwell | February 28, 2008 1:26 PM
Whether joke or not, the article's points are worth pondering...Every process that occurs within the physical universe, must by necessity be a NATURAL, PHYSICAL process. Any supernatural/metaphysical processes, must come from "without". They would therefore be forever beyond science, and human comprehension. Anything "metaphysical" is by definition, beyond the physical, and hence meaningless even to discuss...
Creation isn't a once and for all event, but an ongoing process. You don't have to deny evolution or Big Bang cosmology to believe in a creator, since creator is an infinitely malleable term. Metaphysics tries to explain why physics exists, and exists in the form it does. Scientists may be able to explain this phenomenon in terms of something else, and so on back to the Big Bang, but the ultimate explanation, the reason why anything exists at all, and exists in the form it does, must come from "beyond". But then, what explains the creator? And why THAT creator, and not another, etc etc... Also, that's hovering between deism and pantheism, not Christian theism, which is what this author asserts. (NB, I'm not trying to Sokal this Sokal'er)
Posted by: PeteK | February 28, 2008 1:29 PM
Basically, this thread reads:
"I agree with PZ"
"Oh my non-existant god, I agree too!"
"And I agree with you!"
"And I you!"
And so on for sixty some posts, with childish insults to parties that are not present interspersed liberally. It's to be expected, I suppose. You spend so much time chirping about how there is no scientific evidence for a creator, or any measure of the metaphysical, and then, when some arises, in a peer reviewed journal, no less, you mock it endlessly in an effort to trick yourself into thinking it will go away.
Posted by: RD | February 28, 2008 1:35 PM
Creationists say:
Wow! Project much?
Posted by: Monado, FCD | February 28, 2008 1:40 PM
Posted by: RD | February 28, 2008 1:35 PM
What's with all the meta-trolling lately? there's this guy, nobody, etc....
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | February 28, 2008 1:43 PM
*pout*
HAHAHA.
Peers. If your peers are FUCKWITS.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 28, 2008 1:50 PM
#65 (RD)
Did you read the whole of Dr Desmond Allen's "paper"?
If so, how long did it take?
What points in the "paper" did you find particularly illuminating?
Do you believe that this "paper" will have any influence on any branch of science ever?
If so, which branch and when?
FWIW #1, I emailed Dr Allen asking him whether the "paper" is a hoax.
FWIW #2, I don't believe ARJ will go away soon but I don't believe that anyone (apart from the typesetters, perhaps) will read a full article in it either.
Posted by: Carl | February 28, 2008 1:54 PM
Hey, RD, would you mind pointing out the 'scientific' or the 'evidence' in that paper?
Posted by: Elf Eye | February 28, 2008 1:56 PM
"Admit it, if you thought about it, no matter how briefly, you probably also were thinking that the hard part would be making the stupidity subtle enough that it would get past the AiG "reviewers"."
Hmm... I confess, I did :D
Couldn't we sneak a hiddenly pro-evolution paper past them? Now that would be great :D
Posted by: dvrvm | February 28, 2008 1:59 PM
Oh, what the hey, might as well put here Granville Sewell's article that life looks, after all of the blather about appearance of design, like it is the result of "natural processes":
Take that, AIG. Your precious Granville is saying that things don't look like a designer did it, but that natural processes did.
He still doesn't get it, that evolution predicts what we see, that specific natural processes have been observed which account for the kinds of evolutionary changes observed. True, we'd look for "natural processes" (whatever "natural" is supposed to mean) regardless of whether or not we had evidence for them, but we wouldn't say in science that "natural processes" caused what we see in biology unless we actually had cause and effect reasons to say so.
What I like is how the "message" is getting confused and self-contradictory. We were supposedly unwilling to consider design even though life "looks designed", then we were supposedly unwilling only to consider "supernatural design" (of course we are, since it's deliberately defined to be untestable, including in the case of ID), and now we're supposed to be wrong because while life looks like it is the result of "natural causes," we don't know what these "natural causes" are.
But life couldn't look like it is the result of "natural causes " unless we knew what effects "natural causes" would produce. Life can only look "naturally caused" because we know a lot about these causes. We don't know everything about them, especially not in very old organelles (which is why the flagellum was chosen to flagellate "Darwinists"), but we damn well know a lot about them, and can even guage whether or not genes have been positively selected within the past few million years.
Anyway, I thought it a very interesting admission from Granville. What, no more "evolution violates SLOT," or is this just a momentary lapse into intellectual honesty?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 28, 2008 2:01 PM
"You spend so much time chirping about how there is no scientific evidence for a creator, or any measure of the metaphysical, and then, when some arises, in a peer reviewed journal, no less, you mock it endlessly in an effort to trick yourself into thinking it will go away."
Are you kidding me?
So what part of this "peer reviewed" paper specifically gives scientific evidence for a creator, or a measure of the metaphysical? Did you read the paper, and do you know what it means to be Sokaled?
Posted by: mattmc | February 28, 2008 2:01 PM
Sounds like he lifted some of this from PKD's Valis, just not the good parts.
"If I bring back the ashtrays can I have back my prefrontal?"
Posted by: Horselover | February 28, 2008 2:15 PM
"... you mock it endlessly in an effort to trick yourself into thinking it will go away."
And you praise it highly to trick yourself into thinking it's not complete bullshit.
So, there.
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 28, 2008 2:36 PM
>># mattmc once said in another place:
>>February 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
>>
>>The Stupid... It burns
McMatt is very perceptive - the stupid does (sic) BURN; he is about as perceptive as an all-beef patty en route to a Mickey D's, and we all know that there is No Salvation in Ronald!
You all laugh now, but when the TRUTH is eventually known - as it will be to each of us, individually. Evolution will fall. TSLoT will be reconsidered in light of the INSPIRED calculations of the late, great Auguste du Gerdemain and of the calculations of those who first defined the isoclysmic property of the du Gerdemain manifold.
Read them and weep for Salvation in Christ:
Auguste du Gerdemain, Recherches de la me. Chos. et de la Thermodynamique, Vol 42, No. XIV, pgs. 21-35, (1879)
and
K. Ludwig, L. Mayer, X. Austerlitz, and P. Olsen in 1885 in the Zeitschrift fuer Phys. der re. Naturfor., Vol. 10, No. 7, pgs. 23-24.
It is not my fault if you ignore the Truth.
Peace be unto you,
Mark Witt
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
Posted by: Mark Witt | February 28, 2008 2:40 PM
Gee,
I find metaphysical reality easily deniable.
If the statement that all humans , "intuitively know(ing) right from wrong, that we should not kill, lie, or steal" is true, then why do they behave that way both as societies and as individuals? Why is there a strong positive correlation between religious belief and being incarcerated for crimes according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons?
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Shouldn't those who deny the existence of metaphysical reality be incarcerated at a higher rate than the "believers", rather than at roughly 1/50th the rate.
The statement that, "subatomic systems mysteriously defy the known laws of physics so that events some might consider miraculous (that is, in defiance of the laws of classical physics) are not only accounted for but expected", is nonsense. It is a fact that subatomic systems mysteriously OBEY the known laws of physics so that events some might consider miraculous (that is, in defiance of the laws of classical physics) are not only accounted for but expected.
The statement is made that, "even the notion of metaphysical realities (which necessarily lie outside the basic laws of physics) is not subject to consideration, thereby effectively excluding such concepts as spirituality, supernatural intervention, and even life after death." This is also nonsense; all that is required is verifiable evidence. For example, all that would be required to prove the existence of the Monotheistic God of Abraham would be a universal public appearance, or an act like turning gravity off for a minute. Easy for this character IF it existed.
.
Posted by: Jaycubed | February 28, 2008 2:41 PM
They forgot a few keywords:
Keywords: Creation, big bang, deity, electromagnetic energy, evolution, eternity, faith, image of God, infinity, hologram, metaphysical, cognizance, miracles, mind, multidimensional, nonlocal and local realism, ontology, physics, physical matter, reality, redemption, sin, spirit, soul, subatomic, supernatural, time- space continuum, quantum mechanics, bullshit, bullcrap, god-intoxication run amok, the usual creationist dementia, putz-reviewed crap, philosophy for dolts, by dolts.
Posted by: CalGeorge |