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!