Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Larry Krauss on Ben Carson’s “scientific ignorance”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here:

Perhaps his silliest statements have to do with our own solar system. Carson claims that our solar system is perfectly ordered—but, in fact, the motion of the planets is chaotic in the long term, and, although we can predict the motion of comets over the seventy-year period he discusses, for longer time horizons, such as millions or billions of years, the complexity of our solar system makes that practically impossible.More.

If it isn’t perfectly ordered, why is there so much life here, but we are forever hearing about endless other habitable planets that turn out probably not to be.

Anyway, fine words from a crackpot cosmologist who thinks all scientists should be militant atheists .

Election season brings ‘em out, we would guess.

Who reads the New Yorker anyway? While I have read some fine articles there, they do publish an awful lot of silly stuff.

That said, Ben Carson should not pretend to be an expert on everything.

Comments
Lawrence M. Krauss in the second paragraph states:
In the speech, he made statements on subjects ranging from evolution to the Big Bang that suggest he never learned or chooses to ignore basic, well-tested scientific concepts.
That was Krauss's first major misstep (of which there are many missteps in his article). Perhaps Dr. Krauss, or one of his atheistic cronies, would like to show us the exact empirical evidence that has established evolution as "a well-tested scientific concept"? Or any well tested empirical evidence whatsoever that has even established evolution as a proper science in the first place? There is no real time empirical evidence for evolution period! Not one molecular machine, nor even a single protein (M. Behe, D. Axe), has ever been observed being created from scratch by unguided material processes. In fact, it is now known, from 'well tested' empirical evidence, that a single protein arising by unguided material processes is fantastically improbable.
Yockey and a Calculator vs. Evolutionists - C. Hunter PhD Biophysics - Sept. 2015 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/09/yockey-and-calculator-versus.html
With no real time empirical basis, nor even a rigid mathematical basis that can be tested against for accuracy as other theories of science have, Darwinism is simply not even a science in the first place but is instead a non-falsifiable pseudo-science that is no better than tea leaf reading.
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist - Michael Egnor Excerpt: The fight against the design inference in biology is motivated by fundamentalist atheism. Darwinists detest intelligent design theory because it is compatible with belief in God. But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity–the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells–is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines. I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin’s theory of biological origins is atheism’s creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor. - Michael Egnor is a professor and vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/06/neurosurgeon-intelligent-design-opinions-darwin09_0205_michael_egnor.html
bornagain77
October 3, 2015
October
10
Oct
3
03
2015
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply