Well, the Darwinists are not going into that good night gently. James Peebles got the prize because he, in the Wall Street Journal’s words, “developed precise models of cosmic creation, transforming cosmology ‘from speculation to science,’ ” which invited a critical response from a Darwin spear-carrier, Kevin Williamson, impaling himself on Mt. Improbable for no particular reason:
Williamson refers to Peebles, a Canadian by birth, and the pair of fellow physicists who shared the prize with him:
Goodness, look at that: a couple of dodgy Europeans and a @#$%&! immigrant at Princeton!
They probably don’t even buy into “intelligent design,” either.
Harrumph, etc.
Yet, insofar as Peebles’s work helped to strengthen the evidence for a cosmic beginning, it is actually part of the argument for intelligent design made by, among others, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer in his next book, The Return of the God Hypothesis. As Meyer and fellow ID proponents have pointed out, a starting point to physical existence, which is what the Big Bang represents, is among the most persuasive evidences against a materialist perspective on reality. Taken together with the remarkable fine-tuning data, it suggests a purposeful cause operating intelligently outside nature, responsible for creation. That is why materialists resisted it until the gathering evidence, developed in Peebles’s field, made it impossible them for to do so any longer.
David Klinghoffer, “Physics Nobel Prize Invites Snark from the Anti-ID Peanut Gallery” at Evolution News and Science Today
It takes no great familiarity with arguments around the Big Bang hypothesis to know that the chief reason it is widely hated is its theistic implications. And the main reason that fine-tuning of the universe is hated for its design implications. Many cosmologists would far rather see science through to its assisted suicide via claims about a multiverse than live with either.
But if one is just looking for something to be snarky about, it is best not to engage with any serious issues. In that case, puffing popular Darwinism at every opportunity is the best choice available. There’s sure no Nobel for that.
See also: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.
Kevin Williamson? Oh yes, here, from the files: “Rube-Bait” Kevin Williamson vs. David Klinghoffer, Round 3
Note: The Darwinian spear-carrier thing riffs off, yes, Berlinski.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
The Big Bang theory is “widely hated” and one of ” the most persuasive evidences against a materialist perspective on reality”? I’d say you were getting positively Trumpian in your self-serving hyperbole except you’d probably take it as a compliment.
From Seversky…
“The Big Bang theory is “widely hated” and one of ” the most persuasive evidences against a materialist perspective on reality”? I’d say you were getting positively Trumpian in your self-serving hyperbole except you’d probably take it as a compliment.”
Not an argument – just a pout.
I think that the idea that the big bang is “widely hated” is a completely unjustified canard. I wonder if anyone can show a current source of someone who hates the big bang theory?
Hazel
Who doesn’t love Sheldon, Leonard, Penny and the rest of the nerd crew? 🙂
Ed & Hazel – oooh, don’t get me started…
If the big bang isn’t hated then why are materialists doing mental gymnastics to either A) try to explain it away or B) suggesting other scenarios?
As to:
Mayor “on the sidelines of a conference” stated, “It’s completely crazy,” to believe that humans will migrate to other planets:
Insisting on sanity in science is sure fire way to ruffle even more atheistic feathers.
As to this comment from the OP:
Another piece of evidence that strongly indicates that God created the universe, and the earth, is that anomalies in the CMBR are now found to line up with the earth and solar system:
Bob O’H@ 5
Oh, go on, treat yourself!
Bornagain77@ 7
“Space, the final frontier…”
No, it’s not crazy, as any Trekkie will tell you, just highly impractical and impracticable at this time. We need EITHER new physics to make FTL travel possible and – more importantly – affordable OR generation ships on which people will be willing to live their whole lives between the stars OR vastly extended human lifespans so that long-term travel is not so much of an obstacle. All a long way off, I grant you, but not crazy.
Seversky, perhaps you should reference someone besides “any Trekkie” to try to support your claim that it is ‘not crazy’?
For instance, in support of the claim that it is ‘crazy’, I can reference the fact that no material object can travel the speed of light, much less travel faster than the speed of light, and that the milky way galaxy itself is on the order of at least 170,000 light-years, and possibly up to 200,000 light-years, across its diameter.
And that is just the basic physics, that does not even take into consideration the fact the space, and interstellar space in particular, are VERY inhospitable to life
Nor does it take into consideration the fact that, by any reasonable measure, there are no other habitable planets in the universe for humans to go to even if it were remotely feasible and/or reasonable to do so.
Shoot, I can even throw in the Fermi paradox for good measure, i.e. if intelligent life is relatively abundant in the universe, as atheists presuppose, then where in blue blazes are all the aliens?
Thus Seversky, once again, you have nothing but imagination, (and the authority of “any Trekkie” 🙂 ), to back up your claim that space colonization is “not crazy”.
Might I be so bold as to suggest to you that you referring to your imagination, and “any Trekkie”, is not the way for you to go about scientifically proving to me that your belief in interstellar travel is not delusional and/or crazy?
Might I also be so bold as to suggest to you that you also look a little higher than interstellar space itself for life?
Here is a humorous episode about a oh so ‘coincidental’ phone call at SETI with very interesting timing as to its occurrence
As a Christian who has seen a few answered prayers during my life, I find it strange that the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) organization spends millions of dollars vainly searching for signs of extra-terrestrial life in this universe, when all anyone has to do to make solid contact with THE primary ‘extra-terrestrial intelligence’ of the entire universe is to pray with a sincere heart.
God, who created heaven and earth, certainly does not hide from those who sincerely seek and/or need Him.
Bornagain77@ 10
Yes, we all know. That’s why I pointed out we would need some new physics such as Alcubierre’s theoretical “warp drive” which would warp space in front of and behind a spaceship in such a way that it never exceeds the speed of light locally.
Which raises the question of why your God would place the pinnacle of His creation in a Universe that is so inhospitable to it.
We’ve discovered just over 4000 exoplanets so far and that’s just in a short time and in a relatively small region of space. Granted most of them are not suitable for life as we know it but in a Universe of this size it seems highly unlikely that Earth is the only planet capable of supporting life. It wouldn’t surprise me if we found there was life of some sort on Mars way back and who knows what might be floating around in that sub-surface ocean on Io.
Here amongst us, disguised to look like us? Flying around in cloaked ships that are invisible to our sensors? It shouldn’t be too hard for a more advanced space-faring race that takes their Prime Directive more seriously than some Starfleet officers I could name. The Fermi Paradox is not a particularly impressive objection.
Of course it’s mostly imagination at the moment but we have to start somewhere. In fact, you could say that’s where most if not all of humanity’s great scientific advances have begun.
Compared with how many unanswered prayers?
To paraphrase Captain Kirk in the movie Star Trek V: The Final Frontier “What does God need with a prayer?” He is supposed to be omniscient, sees into each of our hearts, knows what we think before think it, knows what we need before we are aware of the need ourselves. So why do we need to pray?