Culture Intelligent Design Naturalism News

Yes, Dawkins sidekick Lawrence Krauss’s arguments are weak, but take heed…

Spread the love

It doesn’t matter (I’ll explain why below). First, here, Vince Torley mentions, among other things, exoplanet expert Daniel Bakken on Lawrence Krauss’s weak response to Eric Metaxas’s piece on fine tuning, worth quoting in detail and reading in full:

Krauss: My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming,” but his statement should not be misinterpreted. The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin, that the appearance of design is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable efficiency of natural selection.

Bakken: This is misdirection. We are trying to grapple with the question of this universe’s fine-tuning, and pointing to the design of biological systems doesn’t address the point at all. Davies made this statement in the context of the physical laws of the universe, and its life-allowing properties, so he isn’t being misinterpreted by Metaxas. Again, I am struck by the weakness of Dr. Krauss’s response here. He certainly is smart enough to know he isn’t answering the question posed by Metaxas, a question that is in Dr. Krauss’s own field of expertise. In fact, the design in biology, even if it is natural, only adds to the mystery of why the only universe we have direct knowledge of has the properties of fine-tuning that can allow these processes. Just saying we wouldn’t be here to notice it, as Dr. Krauss implies, isn’t an answer either.

Even beyond that is the uniqueness of the Earth when comparing it to the many other planetary systems that are being discovered. It takes an impressively stable climate over billions of years, all the while protected from gravitational and life-extinguishing radiation disturbances, to make our home what it is. The solar system, the Sun, the other planets’ orbits and characteristics, the moon, even our galaxy and our place in it — all these contribute to what is seen by a growing number of researchers in the field as pointing to the fact that the Earth is not an average planet, but an incredibly special one. More.

Take heed because it actually doesn’t matter whether his arguments are good or not.  The naturalist believes in nature and nothing else. The Islamist believes in Allah and nothing else. Evidence is a threat to both positions because it may or may not support one’s dogma. (Life is often a threat to blind dogma.)

In the growing conflict between naturalism and Islamic terror, many will listen to Krauss and heave a sigh of relief—even if his arguments are senseless and heedless of fact.

The pressure on those of us who use our freedom to look at the evidence honestly, as Vince Torley does, will only increase in the years ahead.

See also: Don’t let Mars fool you. Those exoplanets teem with life!

and

Origin of life: Could it all have come together in one very special place?

Also, here is some sense of Krauss: William Lane Craig is “disingenuous,” and he “shocked” Larry Krauss in a recent debate? If Craig really and truly shocked Krauss, of all people, the hydro company should hire Craig to bring down the utility rates.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

8 Replies to “Yes, Dawkins sidekick Lawrence Krauss’s arguments are weak, but take heed…

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    As a “naturalist” I’m still waiting for anyone to provide evidence for any other sort of explanation. What would ‘supernaturalist’ or ‘artificialist’ evidence look like, I wonder?

  2. 2
    cantor says:

    What would ‘supernaturalist’ or ‘artificialist’ evidence look like, I wonder?

    You are equivocating the word “naturalist”.

    ID doesn’t argue for ‘supernaturalist’ or ‘artificialist’ evidence. It argues that the evidence all around you screams “design”.

    For that, there is mountains of evidence. And oceans. And galaxies.

    It’s all around you. Just open your eyes (and mind) and look.

  3. 3
    mahuna says:

    “Even beyond that is the uniqueness of the Earth when comparing it to the many other planetary systems that are being discovered.”

    I hadn’t quite thought of the question quite this way before.

    A. The only universe we can experienced is “fine tuned for Life”.
    B. If the entire universe is fine tuned for life, then life should be common and abundant throughout this huge space.
    C. But the only life we can find in this universe is on Earth.

    Kinda makes you think something special (arbitrary? directed?) is going on, rather than something random.

  4. 4
    chris haynes says:

    The judgment and character of a scientist such as Kraus, are central to assessing his claims.

    Therefore the report on January 8 2015 Daily Beast is worth
    noting. Beware, it is disgusting.

    Kraus was, and is, a friend and a patron of Jeffrey Epstein of the Price Andrew sex scandal. Epstein, is an unrepentant serial child rapist, of 12 year olds. He has compared his child rape to “stealing a bagel”.

    Kraus is well aware of Epstein’s acts, and has been for many years. He says of them:
    “It’s not my taste. But I don’t condemn people for their taste.”

    As I said, disgusting.
    Child rape is a matter of “taste”?
    A person who says that, how would they view telling the truth?

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    chris haynes @ 4

    The judgment and character of a scientist such as Kraus, are central to assessing his claims.

    Therefore the report on January 8 2015 Daily Beast is worth
    noting. Beware, it is disgusting.

    Kraus was, and is, a friend and a patron of Jeffrey Epstein of the Price Andrew sex scandal. Epstein, is an unrepentant serial child rapist, of 12 year olds. He has compared his child rape to “stealing a bagel”.

    Kraus is well aware of Epstein’s acts, and has been for many years. He says of them:
    “It’s not my taste. But I don’t condemn people for their taste.”

    Krauss isn’t condoning child rape and there is no suggestion that he does. This is the context of that quote:

    Another big scientific brain featured on Epstein’s feeds: acclaimed theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, who counts himself as one of Epstein’s close friends.

    Krauss confirmed that he’d spoken with Epstein as recently as this week. Despite the hullabaloo over his role in the underage sex scandal, Epstein showed no signs in their conversations of being shaken by the negative attention.

    “We talked about the science the whole time the other day,” Krauss told The Daily Beast in a phone interview.

    Their friendship began when Krauss, who was chairman of the physics department at Case Western in Cleveland, sought out Epstein.

    “I heard Jeffrey was interested in supporting science and I contacted him,” Krauss said.

    Not long after, Epstein arranged for Krauss and a handpicked set of his fellow geniuses to come for a retreat at Epstein’s home on the Caribbean island of St. Thomas.

    “It was Stephen Hawking and five other Nobel laureates,” Krauss recalled.

    The St. Thomas gathering happened around 2005, according to Krauss. Separately, that’s also around the same time that Epstein was facing the first of many public accusers.

    But Krauss said that from the moment he and the other scientists arrived on the island, they never saw anything untoward.

    “Jeffrey had his girlfriend there and there were beautiful women, too. But none of them were underage,” Krauss recalled.

    Before the jaunt to the Caribbean, Krauss admitted he’d done a little research and “read all about” the wealthy businessman’s extracurriculars of “happening to like beautiful, young women.”

    “It’s not my taste. But I don’t condemn people for their taste,” Krauss added. “Everybody has their quirks and quarks.”

    Quite clearly, Krauss was talking about Epstein’s predilection for surrounding himself with beautiful women. Some might find that distasteful but it’s neither illegal nor immoral.

    And even if any of the allegations against Krauss were true, it would still have no bearing on his science or his views on science, any more than Newton’s obsession with alchemy or Maxwell’s religious beliefs had any bearing on their science. Einstein could have been the worst pedophile imaginable and it would have done absolutely nothing to change the way the Universe runs according to the theories of relativity.

  6. 6
    ppolish says:

    “Appearance of Design” lol. “Appearance of” is stage 2 denial. When you can’t deny X any longer (stage 1 denial), you move to stage 2 denial (it’s just an appearance of X).

    Not sure what stage 3 denial is – heads exploding?

  7. 7
    Robert Byers says:

    Come on already!!
    A thing that appears to be designed is a conclusion one is forced to. Everyone agrees eh. BUT they say the design is only a appearance of design.
    Come on.
    One must knock out first it is designed.
    Second thing to offer another explanation.
    Designedism dominants.

  8. 8
    Axel says:

    ‘Come on already!!
    A thing that appears to be designed is a conclusion one is forced to. Everyone agrees eh. BUT they say the design is only a appearance of design.’

    It’s the very bedrock of empirical science, isn’t it? The manifest and measurable. Even invisible electricity is manifested in energy/power.

    What Dum-Dums! What’s the alternative, dopes?

Leave a Reply