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.
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!