Comments on: The Case for a Creator: A Universe Not Made For Us

By: lpetrich

lpetrich — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:35:45 +0000

Even worse, the laws of physics must be expressed in mathematics that goes far beyond the heads of the large majority of people. Even simple algebra goes over the heads of many people.

So why make the Universe so difficult to understand that only a tiny fraction of the population can have a reasonably-good understanding of how it works? Or else why not make us so that a large fraction of the population can easily understand the necessary mathematics?

By: Caiphen

Caiphen — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 01:34:51 +0000

'I think, reading things like this, that the intended audience is doubting Christians, and perhaps believing ones. These thin rationalizations would be far more convincing to someone in the throes of religion, meant to serve as bolsters for belief, not to induce belief in the first place. This is the 'two' of the one-two punch, the 'one' being the irrational emotional appeal, and before that fades away, land the slick psuedoscientific handwaving'. Nathan Yes, you're right. I was in the throes of religion at one time. After a Xians heavy investment into it they want it to be true. They'll ignore all else except that which bolsters their belief. I'm pretty sure that the writer of a book like 'The Case For a Creator' knows how dishonest he/she really is.

By: Paul Crowley

Paul Crowley — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:37:21 +0000

It shouldn't come as a surprise to find that it's easier to bring to mind examples of things that we have discovered because we are able to than things we haven't discovered because we are not able to.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:52:14 +0000

I think, reading things like this, that the intended audience is doubting Christians, and perhaps believing ones. These thin rationalizations would be far more convincing to someone in the throes of religion, meant to serve as bolsters for belief, not to induce belief in the first place. This is the 'two' of the one-two punch, the 'one' being the irrational emotional appeal, and before that fades away, land the slick psuedoscientific handwaving. I have to wonder if the author really believes this hooey, because, if not, this is just despicable - and I'd rather not believe that of anyone.

By: Tommykey

Tommykey — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:18:38 +0000

The creation account in Genesis truly betrays its human origins when the stars are described as being put in the night sky by God for our benefit, such as to mark the seasons and such. It would be amusing to tell that to the inhabitants of a planet that orbited one of those stars.

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 06:15:37 +0000

I think it likely that there are a few intelligent lifeforms in our galaxy that might make similar arguments. Maybe aquatic critters on that mega-earth we discovered might disbelieve that photosynthesis could happen on land surfaces ("land" what's that?) or even in the oceans. Perhaps their rich oceans depend on photosynthesis in their thick atmosphere. They might be able to float to the top of their atmosphere using rigid aerostats and observe the stars for the first time. They'd have to be pretty high tech to ever see the stars. They might have computers before they ever saw stars.

By: Shawn Smith

Shawn Smith — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 03:23:04 +0000

Thanks for your examination of these pretty fanciful claims. I just have one nit to pick:

Even the nearest stars would take thousands of years to reach using the fastest means of travel currently available to us,

Extending on the point brought up by Logan Blackisle in #7 above, Are you aware of This report from NASA from the late 80's? There was some thought put into how to make a probe that would make it to Alpha Centauri in about 100 years, and be able to send data back (at a few kilobits per second with a 4.5 year latency.)

By: Lenoxus

Lenoxus — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:01:27 +0000

Wouldn't any universe with sufficiently intelligent life forms be conducive to science? As long as there is at least one consistent law, there is something for science to "do", and the continuous existence of life would naturally require at least one consistent law (or else everything would be like that Far Side cartoon with the label "Out of Order" stuck on a mishmash of characters and objects, but far more chaotic still). Okay, these forms would have to have at least one means of perceiving their environment, and at least one way to communicate their findings and ideas with others, preferably in a static storage system like writing.

By: Erika

Erika — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:19:51 +0000

Ahh, confirmation bias.

By: Greta Christina

Greta Christina — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:11:13 +0000

It trivializes and demeans their effort for creationists to come in afterward and claim that those scientists were really just finding the clues planted by God.

Especially when creationists flatly ignore the clues that we do have. And I'll second what David D.G. said. The fact that so many of the important truths about the universe are invisible to the naked eye -- either because they're too small or too far away -- is a major, major flaw in the purported "design" of the discoverable and comprehensible universe.

By: Logan Blackisle

Logan Blackisle — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:24:42 +0000

The nearest star would NOT take 'thousands of years' to reach; it can be done in a century or less with Nuclear Pulse Propulsion - still way too long for any kind of easy traveling, but our technology continues to become better and better.

Saying it would take thousands of years is just a needless exaggeration.

Aside from that, I look forward to next post.

By: David D.G.

David D.G. — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:15:16 +0000

Since you ask, Ebonmuse, you might consider adding that many things are hard to observe and learn about (or even be aware of) because of incredibly tiny size --- microbes, viruses, molecules, atoms, etc. That's one reason it took us so long to figure out that invisibly tiny creatures were responsible for most diseases, rather than demons, witches, imbalanced humours, and so on.

Nice job you're doing on deconstructing this book, by the way. Keep up the great work!

~David D.G.