Mendacious twits no 1

Knowing that one's comments are not going to be lost in some censor's virtual desk is strangely liberating. This was written yesterday in response to this post. I figure that 12+ hours is sufficient time to decide whether one will go with the open discussion that they claim to crave so much, or whether one would rather sweep opposing opinions under the rug. I admit that there is perhaps a slight surfeit of snarkiness in my response, but come on: Strobel? AFFS, here it is:

Strobel? You must be kidding. He is a paragon of intellectual dishonesty, and, quite frankly, is about as ignorant as one can be on the subjects he purports to make categorical claims about. To wit: (1)the Big Bang Theory makes no claims about the causes of the Universe, nor does it postulate a beginning since it breaks down at Planck time or thereabouts. There is absolutely nothing in it to support or contradict the existence of God. (2) and (3) are completely vague and almost nonsensical, and an appeal to ignorance is hidden within each of them. (4) is ridiculous to anyone familiar with the basics of biology: it is not that the Earth is fine-tuned for life, but life is fine-tuned to its environment, which is precisely what is expected under the standard evolutionary paradigm. (5) and (6) are again, simply begging the question. What's more, (6) uses the term "information" in some esoteric sense: most information theorists and mathematicians are quite puzzled at Dembski's redefinition and--apparently--wilful equivocation. (7) is, indeed, an unanswered question, but there is no reason to invoke "goddidit" to explain it. (8) is easily explained within standard evolutionary theory, again (common morality is tio be expected in the members of the same species, as an evolved response to the pressures of social living). (9) is incorrect historically: there are several cultures who did not have a concept of the week at all, and its usage for those that do have it is quite simply explained in several ways, including geometric (stable configuration) and astronomical (the number of "planets" known to the ancients). Basically, Strobel's case disappears into thin air with only a modicum of critical thought. I am not interested in arguing the (non)-existence of a deity here; only pointing out that there is no valid argument for it in the source you seem to admire.

No comments: