Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Rob Sheldon on the current trend to non-theist intelligent design (ID) theory

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We’re talking about Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, claiming at Scientific American that maybe advanced aliens engineered the Big Bang. He can’t say God did it. But he can say that They did it.

Hmmm.

When some people wrote privately to protest that this ET>Big Bang stuff is all just one space bunny too far down the cosmic path, I (O’Leary for News) pointed out in response that Neil deGrasse Tyson (here), Martin Rees (here), and Elon Musk (here) have also suggested that very thing.

Tyson and Musk have great name recko. And yet non-theistic ID is not endangering their careers?

Well, now theoretical physicist Rob Sheldon writes to offer some thoughts on the new-found popularity:


Avi Loeb is a product of post-1947 Israel, where ideology was always important. Enlightenment principles were not going to motivate you to farm the Negev. So instead of the monoculture of scientism, Avi learned how to frame his argument in the ideology du jour to maximum effect. His recent foray into alien ID is a calculated move, and related to his tenure at Harvard. You might say it is a flanking move on the Woke mob.

The Long Ascent: Genesis 1–11 in Science & Myth, Volume 1 by [Robert Sheldon, David Mackie]

Neil de Grasse Tyson is far less creative than Avi. He was a “new atheist” when that was in vogue, he’s switched to “alien ID” when that came up. I think he has a desire for the limelight, and instinctively moves where the lights are brightest.

Martin Rees could have been a solid astrophysicist with high profile graduate students. But his promotion to president of the Royal Society, Royal Astronomer and then to the House of Lords, means that his astrophysics must take secondary precedence to his politics. About the time that all these political posts fell to him, he started publishing pop-sci books:

As you can see, they range from the ID-friendly to the Politically-Correct. In all cases, they attempt to make the argument that science is relevant to politics and even can act as a savior for politics. Then in my view the alien-ID schtick is cynically a rhetorical method of getting a platform with the public to exploit for political causes.

The Long Ascent, Volume 2

Elon Musk has made a career out of selling his genius. For one example, his Tesla motor company has not yet broken even, and would not exist but for government subsidies. And the government subsidizes it because he is a great salesman, and he works his engineers to the bone, discards them, and recruits more engineers. As a salesman, it is important to be on the cutting edge of every movement. Like BitCoin. Not to stay there, but to make a bundle and move on. For Elon to support alien ID, means it is cutting edge right now, and of course, his support means it will soon be passe. Not because it doesn’t work, but because it’s been milked and there are other cows in the pasture.

All these men saw an opportunity. And the opportunity is the Fall of Modernism. It is the same opportunity we IDers have seen for 20 years now.

(All these views are mine, and are not to be construed as support for any individual. I have not received funding from any of these people.)


Readers?

Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent and The Long Ascent, Volume II .

You may also wish to read: At Mind Matters News: Harvard astronomer: Advanced aliens engineered the Big Bang. Avi Loeb writes in Scientific American that when we humans are sufficiently advanced, we will create other universes as well.

Comments
JVL @5, > how does such a being, IF they exist, interact with physical objects? What do you mean by physical objects? As far as we know, there are no physical objects, there is only a wavefunction, which is basically pure math, and there is consciousness, which we have no idea what it is, and finally there is this dice, which someone somewhere throws every so often so the wavefunctions somehow produce these "physical objects" in our consciousness. "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." Niels Bohr Now, why would he say that? :)Eugene
October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
ID reminds me of the est movement in the 70s—it can be whatever you want it to be….
But yet it endorses better science than that taught at any university on the planet. That says more about those that hold such opinions than about ID. How ironic!jerry
October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
“Non-theist intelligent design” is an oxymoron. The only people talking about it are the usual suspects from the Discovery Institute engaging in a collective rationalization trying to convince themselves that ID can be non-theistic. ID reminds me of the est movement in the 70s—it can be whatever you want it to be….chuckdarwin
October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
JVL, @5 “Some of us are just not sure what kind of God you are talking about. A being with no corporeal form, that exists outside of space and time . . . . and how do they affect material reality exactly? I mean how does such a being, IF they exist, interact with physical objects? Doing stuff like that (moving bits around or creating them out of thin air) takes energy. Where does that energy come from? How is it directed“ Your recent statements seem aimed more at the Designer than to the design. You could almost say that you are asking purely theological questions, like asking the identity of said designer and also how said designer went about his work. By asking theological questions it’s only natural to receive theological answers. Now the ID hypothesis does not go so far as to state with certainty, that the designer is indeed the God if the bible. ID’s focus is on the appearance and diversity of life to which they state, couldn’t have come about without some form of intelligence. (They also focus on Darwinism’s inability to account for the appearance and diversity of life). This particular OP and other’s of note have I would say framed the question of intelligence in they’re own way.(maybe intentionally, maybe not) to them the intelligence takes the form of directed panspermia, or simulation’s etc. but the point is they are open about the possibility of an intelligence being accountable for the universe and life. Albeit in they’re own naturalistic way.Seekers
October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Fasteddious: And so we get, “aliens did it”, or “we are in a simulation”, or “anything can happen in the multiverse”, any of which seems more palatable to their atheist presumptions than the idea there might actually be a God who created the world. Some of us are just not sure what kind of God you are talking about. A being with no corporeal form, that exists outside of space and time . . . . and how do they affect material reality exactly? I mean how does such a being, IF they exist, interact with physical objects? Doing stuff like that (moving bits around or creating them out of thin air) takes energy. Where does that energy come from? How is it directed? Isn't it all a just so story until you get specific?JVL
October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
ET: ID does not require a belief in God so an atheist can accept ID. But when a atheist starts asking who the designer is you start getting your knickers in a twist and say that's not part of ID! IF you really think that some alien come up with some kind of plan for the evolution of life on earth and implemented that plan a long, long time ago (and maybe tinkered around with the actual way things played out) and you can come up with a coherent argument for that with some solid evidence of such a being aside from that which you infer was designed then I think you'll have something!JVL
October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
The obvious answer is that as Darwinism comes under more scrutiny and attack, with evidence against it piling ever higher, those in "the know" must skirt away from it carefully by trying out other options, without outright denial of Darwinism. And so we get, "aliens did it", or "we are in a simulation", or "anything can happen in the multiverse", any of which seems more palatable to their atheist presumptions than the idea there might actually be a God who created the world. They will continue to dance around theism by positing ever-more-loony possibilities, just to hang onto their worldview, even though it is in tatters.Fasteddious
October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
ID does not require a belief in God so an atheist can accept ID. The best ID can do for the religious is allow one to be an intellectually fulfilled theist. :cool:ET
October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Hardly new-found. Secular ID was a very common view among scientists 100 years ago. Maybe even the default view.polistra
October 25, 2021
October
10
Oct
25
25
2021
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply