This statement, published today at Columbia math prof Peter Woit’s Not Even Wrong, seems to follow from our linking to his view of Tegmark’s multiverses, “Mathematician wonders about the respectful reception new multiverse book is getting”:
Max Tegmark seems to have decided that my criticism here of the emptiness of ideas in his recent book is “similar to hate-mail I’ve been receiving from a Young-Earth Creationist”. Also, the fact that I have fans at a certain Intelligent Design blog shows that I’m “against the spirit of science”. Given this, I guess I need to formally make the statement that
I am not now and never have been a creationist.
If it’s any help, we believe Woit. And we know creationists the way a sommelier knows wines.
It won’t help, unfortunately. In Max Tegmark’s multiverse, creationist is the new skeptic.
David Berlinski, who obviously isn’t a creationist (if the term has any formal meaning), is routinely derided as a creationist. A guy who asks questions. Knows reasons for doubts. Doesn’t hide them.
UD News is calling this one:
In five years, shut up or else will be the new creationist.
No need to argue. Let’s revisit in five years and see.
Meanwhile: The very fact that doubts about crackpot cosmology would get Woit pegged as a creationist should tell him and his sympathizers far more than it probably does about the risks of opposing evidence-free theories in science today. For context, read “Science Fictions”
See also: Shut up, they explained. But we didn’t, and so …
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Does UD also believe Woit when he says,
“More specifically, everything I’ve seen about Intelligent Design indicates to me it is nonsense, and I’ve done my best to ignore those who promote such nonsense, whether they link to my blog or not. ”
lol
Most likely he believes that. So? Will such a declaration get him left alone to pursue skepticism about crackpot cosmology safely? Or is crackpot cosmology the Darwinism of the cosmos?
Well, apparently the Darwin Lobby doesn’t believe him.
Ironically, you’ve just proved the point O’Leary was making: shut up or you’re a creationist.
If someone believes in a god and that this god created our universe, does that make someone a creationist? If it does, then most of the people on the planet are creationists and so have most of the scientists in history been creationists.
Given Uncommon Descent is about serving the Intelligent Design community then I would have though the more interesting point he said was how he described Intelligent Design as nonsense.
Why should the point about creationism even be relevant if ID is a scientific endeavour ?
As Jerry wants to be loose about what a creationist is then the majority of Christians (which are creationists in a sense) in the Western world accept the scientific theory of evolution and not ID.
We live in nonsensical matrix of intentional misrepresentations about everything in our World and the Universe in which we reside.
10 Commandments of science:
1)Thou shalt not challenge the orthodoxy , those that do shall be as heretics
2)Thou shalt not publish heretical works or thy career shall be as dust
3)Thou shalt not engage in discourse with the heretic , lest Ye be tainted with the mark of heresy thyself
4)Thou shalt believe with Thine whole heart the theory only and cleave not unto empirical evidence
5) Thou shalt not admit the existence of refuting evidence lest thou be smitten with a curse
6) Thou Shalt not be permitted to Think lest thou be visited by all manner of afflictions
7) Thou shalt believe in the consensus no matter the absurdity and never question
8) Honour the powers that be that thy days, and careers, may be long upon the land
9) Thou shalt not covet heretical / alternative theories even if they appear to make more sense
10) Thou shalt have no other theory before me
Sad that Professor Woit is willing to, very rightly, demand testability, and mathematical rigor, of any theory of science that purports to explain how the universe came to be, but that he is not willing to demand that same testability, and mathematical rigor, of any theory that purports to explain how he himself came to be:
As to how the “anything goes” (lack of testability) problem for the multiverse is also true for Darwinism:
As to how Darwinism lacks any mathematical rigor:
Well, perhaps that whole mathematics thing may get worked out in the future for Darwinism, but what about testability? Does ‘random mutation’, one of the two primary pillars of evolutionary thought, hold up to testing?
Well so much for Random mutations/variations providing convincing support for Darwinism! How about Natural Selection? Can Darwinists demonstrate that the second pillar of Darwinian thought, Natural Selection, is true?
WOW, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is not even on the right playing field to do the ‘selecting’ in the first place! But hey we IDiots are fair, let’s see if Natural Selection were to be on the right playing field, dimensionally speaking, if it could be true then,,
This devastating ‘princess and the pea’ problem for natural selection is pointed out by Dr. John Sanford at the 8:14 minute mark of this following video,,,
All of which begs the question, if showing that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis in which to falsify it, and also showing that both of the two primary pillars of Darwinian thought (both Natural Selection and Random Mutations) are false, exactly what scientific finding could possibly falsify Darwinism?
Sad that Professor Woit is willing to, very rightly, demand testability, and mathematical rigor, of any theory of science that purports to explain how the universe came to be, but that he is not willing to demand that same testability, and mathematical rigor, of any theory that purports to explain how he himself came to be:
As to how the “anything goes” (lack of testability) problem for the multiverse is also true for Darwinism:
As to how Darwinism lacks any mathematical rigor:
Well, perhaps that whole mathematics thing may get worked out in the future for Darwinism, but what about testability? Does ‘random mutation’, one of the two primary pillars of evolutionary thought, hold up to testing?
Well so much for Random mutations/variations providing convincing support for Darwinism! How about Natural Selection? Can Darwinists demonstrate that the second pillar of Darwinian thought, Natural Selection, is true?
WOW, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is not even on the right playing field to do the ‘selecting’ in the first place! But hey we IDiots are fair, let’s see if Natural Selection were to be on the right playing field, dimensionally speaking, if it could be true then,,
This devastating ‘princess and the pea’ problem for natural selection is pointed out by Dr. John Sanford at the 8:14 minute mark of this following video,,,
All of which begs the question, if showing that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis in which to falsify it, and also showing that both of the two primary pillars of Darwinian thought (both Natural Selection and Random Mutations) are false, exactly what scientific finding could possibly falsify Darwinism?
Of related note: Intelligent Design does not suffer from such lack of mathematical rigor:
Moreover, Intelligent Design can easily be falsified by empirical evidence (i.e. testability):
Moreover, ID has positive evidence for its claim that Intelligence, and only Intelligence, can generate functional information/complexity, whereas Darwinism has no evidence whatsoever that it can produce non-tivial functional information/complexity:
Dr. Fuz Rana, at the 41:30 minute mark of the following video, speaks on the tremendous effort that went into building the preceding protein:
Verse and Music;
Lincoln Phipps:
That is impossible as there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. You lose again, Lincoln
Well then Joe what exactly does just about every science academy in the world thinking of when they say “evolution” ?
http://ncse.com/media/voices/science
For example when the Royal Society, http://ncse.com/media/voices/royal-society says “…theory of evolution..” in their statement,
Lets see, you, some anonymous person somewhere on the Internet thinks that there isn’t “any scientific theory of evolution” and yet just about everyone else says there is. Even groups which should be opposites on the spectrum of belief in god, such as the Catholic and Anglican Churches verses the secular humanist groups all accept the science.
This is not a question of belief in god or not but a question of understanding the science that’s on the table. You’re going to have to try a lot harder than your one line wishful thinking that’s devoid of nourishment.
LP
Why the silly rhetorical question?
LP
Obviously, you thought wrong.
It just wouldn’t follow when people are more complex than one point of view, where more than one of those points of view may overlap with the various topics at UD.
If anything, it illustrates that evolutionists are the one’s consistently making ID into creationism. Also, that evolutionists are so overly sensitive and anti-inquiry on their theories, that they allude to anyone as an enemy… and they feel calling or insinuating that a person is a creationist is enough to straighten them up.
lol
The Phipps Meister:
The science of evolution (if you can call it that) has been falsified so many times, the only reason that it is still considered a science is that many important and famous people would lose face and many careers would come to an end if they acknowledged it. The truth is that ‘scientific consensus’ is synonymous with ‘political consensus.’
And scientific consensus is routinely proven to be dead wrong. Back in the last century there was a scientific consensus that equated intelligence with symbol manipulation. Symbolic AI was promoted by some of the greatest minds of 20th century science. It ran supreme for half a century and gobbled up billions of dollars until it was unceremoniously forced out by the weight of the evidence against it: it was a complete failure.
The latest AI consensus craze is that the brain is, fundamentally, a probability thinker. Statistical learning is all the rage. Billions and billions are being spent on it by both government and industry. It, too, will go the way of GOFAI (good old fashioned AI) and the phlogiston. Wait for it. 😀
Lincoln, Isn’t it just a tad strange that no oen can reference this alleged theory of evolution? Not even YOU can post a link to it. That tells me all I need to know.
BTW, it isn’t just me saying that there isn’t any theory of evolution.
Darwin proposed that natural selection is a designer mimic. To date there isn’t any evidence to support that claim. The Royal Society is full of itself.
Calling ID “nonsense” or downright ad hominem attacks is as interesting as ID critics get. What else is new?
We observe that Peter Woit is no exception in not raising substantial criticism and move on. Why would this be a “more interesting point”? What is there to discuss?
And once again LP falls victim to a logical fallacy: the appeal to authority. This form of verbal intimidation is accomplished by invoking the testimonials of so-called experts or famous people. Of course, for advice it is only natural to look to people who know more about something than we do. But not all appeals to authority are based on sound reasoning.
No authority is better than his logic, his assumptions and his claimed facts. So, we need to look at those where there is reason to see tot he groundedness of claims. KF