Can Ken Ham be far behind?

| 15 Comments

Acknowledgement. Thanks to my wife, Deanna Young, for reading the comics.

15 Comments

That is a funny cartoon. I used to like Dilbert back in the mid-nineties.

However -

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_[…]are_bul.html

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_[…]still-b.html

Adams has been in isolation, surrounded by the walls of his cube, for too long.

I thought it was really funny that Dilbert flicked the switch off. If only!

I think this is another ridiculous reaction of creationists (and ID types) to the Higgs Boson being called the “God particle”. The name was stupid in the first place, but they took it to mean that physicists were saying that the Higgs Boson was God.

Since in their view God can’t be a particle, they believe firmly that there can’t possibly be a Higg Boson. If you think I’m making this up, take a look at any mention of the Higgs Boson over at Uncommon Descent. Of course they know the answer to most scientific questions in advance …

If the Higgs was ruled out, all it would do is reveal new paths to understanding nature at a deeper level. I have the sneaking (layman’s) suspicion that the ‘new physics’ will not treat space, time, or causality as fundamental

Joe Felsenstein said:

I think this is another ridiculous reaction of creationists (and ID types) to the Higgs Boson being called the “God particle”. The name was stupid in the first place, but they took it to mean that physicists were saying that the Higgs Boson was God.

Since in their view God can’t be a particle, they believe firmly that there can’t possibly be a Higg Boson. If you think I’m making this up, take a look at any mention of the Higgs Boson over at Uncommon Descent. Of course they know the answer to most scientific questions in advance …

Of course they misunderstood (this pattern is now so well established that it seems akin to the sun rising in the east), but remember that ID isn’t about religion, no-sirree!

Re: the “God particle”, I like this info, shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia:

Lederman said he gave it the nickname “The God Particle” because the particle is “so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive,” but jokingly added that a second reason was because “the publisher wouldn’t let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing.”

Joe Felsenstein said:

I think this is another ridiculous reaction of creationists (and ID types) to the Higgs Boson being called the “God particle”. The name was stupid in the first place, but they took it to mean that physicists were saying that the Higgs Boson was God.

Since in their view God can’t be a particle, they believe firmly that there can’t possibly be a Higg Boson. If you think I’m making this up, take a look at any mention of the Higgs Boson over at Uncommon Descent. Of course they know the answer to most scientific questions in advance …

I know Leon Lederman. He has a bit of a quirky sense of humor.

As he said:

Lederman said he gave the Higgs boson the nickname “The God Particle” because the particle is “so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, but jokingly added that a second reason was because “the publisher wouldn’t let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing.”

We now know that the answer is 42.

Hey, how did that happen?

Mike Elzinga said:

Hey, how did that happen?

Causality fail.

What is wrong with Scott Adams? He seems fairly bright. He has no religious reason to doubt evolution.

Good news from Indiana! Their teach creationism bill died.

http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-sep[…]y-litigation

This reminds me - reminds all of us - of the fundamental epistemological paradox of ID. They are willing to accept scientific authority on a matter as complex as the Higgs Bosom (HB), but aren’t willing to accept authority on something much simpler, e.g. the age of the earth! Granted, I’ve already taken on people like Ham, Hovind, and especially Dembski, but I think no amount of argumentation and evidence will work! Perhaps comics will?

Thanks for every now and then keeping this blog lighthearted!, NS

I don’t know whether they are willing to accept the Higgs boson, but for sure they accept something as complicated as the internet. Can anyone describe in detail the paths that a given message takes from one computer to another, in the detail that is demanded by IDers for evolutionary change?

Tom S,

Your comment is quite insightful. I’ve made the same point, referring to the “irreducible complexity of technology.”

Looks like great minds think alike!

Best, NS

Notedscholar -

I am afraid that in your subtlety, you are creating a “Poe” dilemma. Your web site is extremely well-written and shows strong signs of a sense of humor. I tend to hypothesize that a sense of humor rules out creationism. It happens that some of your arguments are a bit difficult to differentiate from actual creationist arguments. I presume this is happening due to a deliberate effort to “take creationist arguments to their logical extensions” or some such thing.

Still, I have some comments.

This reminds me - reminds all of us - of the fundamental epistemological paradox of ID. They are willing to accept scientific authority on a matter as complex as the Higgs Bosom (HB),

Putting aside the fact that ID/creationists not infrequently deny the possibility of the Higgs Boson, I would hope that no rational people would ever accept the authority of physicists.

What I personally do, as an extremely valuable heuristic, is accept the expertise of physicists.

Hypothetically, I can verify everything physicists say about the Higgs Boson, at almost any level of depth I choose. All major developments related to the Higgs Boson are publicly reported shortly after their discovery. All of the background material required to understand all current thought on the Higgs Boson is also publicly available. True, one might have to sacrifice money and time to gain all the necessary information. Some minimum level of academic ability, whatever that consists of, may be necessary to comprehend the material. The most convenient method of acquiring the background material - getting physics degrees - is restrictive; not everyone can be accepted or sacrifice the time. Lab experience may depend on access to such degree programs, unless one is willing to spend a very large amount of money.

However, in principle, if I wanted to intelligently dispute physicists with regard to the Higgs Boson, it is fair to say that, with only my own abilities and time as a limitation, and no road blocks of secrecy or arbitrary authority erected by physicists, I could use publicly available resources to learn almost everything there is to learn about it.

As it happens, physicists as a group have demonstrated themselves to be highly credible (in my subjective perception), not least of all because they are highly critical of one another, and in general, the heuristic of accepting their consensus opinion on matters pertaining to physics, rather than making myself a physicist in order to check on them, is reasonable. However, this does not ascribe arbitrary authority to them.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on February 21, 2012 1:43 PM.

Chrysaora fuscescens was the previous entry in this blog.

The problem with evo devo is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.38

Site Meter