Fine tuning Intelligent Design Naturalism

Our superiors explain why “people” believe in pseudoscience

Spread the love

In a compendium of sage explanations of where we go wrong but they don’t:

From Corinne Zimmerman, Professor, Psychology, Illinois State University
and Emilio Lobato, Doctoral Student, Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced

Likewise, understanding the myriad processes and mechanisms of biological evolution is far more complicated than a belief that life was purposefully created by some powerful being, so the collection of pseudoscience beliefs under the umbrella terms “creationism” and “intelligent design” are common despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.Daniel Kolitz, “Why Do People Believe in Pseudoscience?” at Gizmodo

There isn’t “scientific evidence to the contrary.” The evidence points to fine-tuning but the evidence is unacceptable. But when you are an expert, you are allowed to make statements about a discussion that ell whatever story you need.

Elite reasoning is interesting. People who see no evidence for design in nature are quite prepared to believe that interstellar object Oumuamua is an alien spacecraft and that an evidence-free multiverse must really exist. And no evidence for fine-tuning of our universe for life is really evidence.

Well, all that’s okay as long as they don’t have power. Oh, wait…

See also: Astronomer: We’re too dumb to think space object Oumuamua was an extraterrestrial lightsail

An astrophysicist makes it clear why a multiverse MUST exist


Hugh Ross: The fine-tuning that enabled our life-friendly moon creates discomfort Was it yesterday that we noted particle physicist Sabine Hossenfelder’s view that fine-tuning is “a waste of time”? Not so fast. If the evidence points to fine-tuning and the only alternative is the crackpot cosmology she deplores, it’s not so much a waste of time as a philosophically unacceptable conclusion. Put another way, it comes down to fine-tuning, nonsense, or nothing.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “Our superiors explain why “people” believe in pseudoscience

  1. 1
    Aeneas Pietas says:

    Those darn, ill-educated “people”.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “pseudoscience beliefs,,, are common despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.”

    Hmmm, you don’t say?

    I wonder how Darwinism itself stacks up to his criteria of determining whether or not something is a pseudoscience?

    Dr. Behe lists the main falsification of Darwin’s theory, that his recent book “Darwin Devolves” focuses on, as such:

    “beneficial degradative mutations will rapidly, relentlessly, unavoidably, outcompete beneficial constructive mutations at every time and population scale.”
    – Michael Behe

    Here are a few more falsifications of Darwinian theory that I could think of off the top of my head (feel free to add to my list if you know of any other falsifications to Darwin’s theory that have been ignored by Darwinists)

    Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. Mutations to the genome are not random but are ‘directed’.

    Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other particular material particles one may wish to invoke.

    Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. From the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Widespread ‘convergent evolution’ on both the morphological and genetic level falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor explainable by reductive materialistic explanations in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm.

    Donald Hoffman has shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’.

    The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of the immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution.

    Darwinist’s insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet is is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    On top of all that, all of science, from top to bottom, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on naturalism. From the Theistic presumption that the universe is rational and that the minds of men can dare understand that rationality, to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube or microscope was ever found just laying on a beach which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no intelligently designed experiments for us to analyse in the first place nor would there be any rational minds to do the analysis.

    In fact, assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Of supplemental note:

    Although the author claimed Intelligent Design was a pseudoscience, the fact of the matter is that Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, can be easily falsified. A single (repeatable) demonstration of unguided material processes generating coded information would do the trick. In fact there is currently up to a 5 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

    The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall
    Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community:
    “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
    “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer.
    A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 5 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research.


    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things; hold firmly that which is good.

Leave a Reply