There is a great debate that still rages on today concerning
our origins. Scientists great ones on
both side argue along with philosophers, thinkers, and theologians. The question will not be answered in our
lifetime, and it probably won’t in the short span of humanities existence.
our origins. Scientists great ones on
both side argue along with philosophers, thinkers, and theologians. The question will not be answered in our
lifetime, and it probably won’t in the short span of humanities existence.
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson makes the charge that intelligent
design is an old theory, one that goes back to when people still believed in
Zeus. He continued that trend with Sir
Isaac Newton, and takes it forward to today.
Though if you ask Dr. Tyson he will tell you simply “Intelligent Design, is a
philosophy of ignorance. It is you get
to something you that don’t understand and you stop. You say god did it, and you no longer
progress beyond that point.”
design is an old theory, one that goes back to when people still believed in
Zeus. He continued that trend with Sir
Isaac Newton, and takes it forward to today.
Though if you ask Dr. Tyson he will tell you simply “Intelligent Design, is a
philosophy of ignorance. It is you get
to something you that don’t understand and you stop. You say god did it, and you no longer
progress beyond that point.”
I would argue that it is deeper than simple ignorance. Ignorance led to those things like the
sciences of old like alchemy. Alchemy of
course not being a science but one that was explored by Sir Isaac Newton along
the way. Not a knock against Newton, he
figured out more in his lifetime than most ever will in two.
sciences of old like alchemy. Alchemy of
course not being a science but one that was explored by Sir Isaac Newton along
the way. Not a knock against Newton, he
figured out more in his lifetime than most ever will in two.
Tyson’s claim about on ignorance can be applied of course to
the so-called “god of the gaps” but it does not take away from the very simple
question. What started everything? If we buy into the Big Bang Theory, which
really is about the only credible scientific explanation as to how our universe
formed we are still left with the ever important question of. But where did all that mass come from? According to quantum physics, time itself
didn’t begin until the big bang, meaning that the mass didn’t exist before the
big bang, because in fact there was no “before”. So where did the mass come from?
the so-called “god of the gaps” but it does not take away from the very simple
question. What started everything? If we buy into the Big Bang Theory, which
really is about the only credible scientific explanation as to how our universe
formed we are still left with the ever important question of. But where did all that mass come from? According to quantum physics, time itself
didn’t begin until the big bang, meaning that the mass didn’t exist before the
big bang, because in fact there was no “before”. So where did the mass come from?
If it came from another Universe, we must ask the same
questions back over and over and over again.
And this of course only drives the next question. Even with mass and the gigantic eruption of
everything at once starting the great cosmic experiment we have watched
unfold. What of life? How does life start without a spark? What spark could possibly have initiated this
process.
questions back over and over and over again.
And this of course only drives the next question. Even with mass and the gigantic eruption of
everything at once starting the great cosmic experiment we have watched
unfold. What of life? How does life start without a spark? What spark could possibly have initiated this
process.
Sir Isaac Newton was not a Christian man in the traditional
sense. Yet like many he believed there
must be a god at work. A creator behind
the scenes, who molds the Universe to his rules and set it in motion. So when Dr. Tyson reaches out through history
to discus the solution to Newton’s problem of god by pointing to Pierre-Simon
Laplace’s apparent quote “I
had no need for that hypothesis” it seems a closed question.
sense. Yet like many he believed there
must be a god at work. A creator behind
the scenes, who molds the Universe to his rules and set it in motion. So when Dr. Tyson reaches out through history
to discus the solution to Newton’s problem of god by pointing to Pierre-Simon
Laplace’s apparent quote “I
had no need for that hypothesis” it seems a closed question.
There are of course a few points of contention. There is no reason there cannot be both a “god”
in the background and an ability to dissect the rules created in our ordered
universe. In fact the very existence of
order implies a god, and indeed quite possibly only 1 god behind the entire
workings. This isn’t saying that we
cannot eventually scientifically figure out every mystery of the universe. It is to say, that just because a mystery has
been unwoven it doesn’t mean that god wasn’t behind it to begin with.
in the background and an ability to dissect the rules created in our ordered
universe. In fact the very existence of
order implies a god, and indeed quite possibly only 1 god behind the entire
workings. This isn’t saying that we
cannot eventually scientifically figure out every mystery of the universe. It is to say, that just because a mystery has
been unwoven it doesn’t mean that god wasn’t behind it to begin with.
The next however is even more interesting. There is no proof that Laplace ever had that
conversation at all. There are no actual
records of this conversation; it is an apocryphal account at best. Laplace apparently wanted this account
stripped from his biography or explained neither was done. There is an entire section on Wikipedia
devoted to this fabled account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#I_had_no_need_of_that_hypothesis It is something that has simply continued
throughout history without ever being recorded outside of the two individuals
in question; Napoleon and Laplace. Even renown
physicist Steven Hawking said in 1999 “I don’t think that Laplace was claiming
God does not exist. It’s just that he
doesn’t intervene, to break the laws of Science.”
conversation at all. There are no actual
records of this conversation; it is an apocryphal account at best. Laplace apparently wanted this account
stripped from his biography or explained neither was done. There is an entire section on Wikipedia
devoted to this fabled account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#I_had_no_need_of_that_hypothesis It is something that has simply continued
throughout history without ever being recorded outside of the two individuals
in question; Napoleon and Laplace. Even renown
physicist Steven Hawking said in 1999 “I don’t think that Laplace was claiming
God does not exist. It’s just that he
doesn’t intervene, to break the laws of Science.”
I had for a time thought greatly of Dr. Tyson. He is an eloquent speaker, he is clearly
intelligent, and has made some interesting contributions to astrophysics such
as the controversial Pluto is not a planet decision. I do not question his intelligence. I do however question his integrity.
intelligent, and has made some interesting contributions to astrophysics such
as the controversial Pluto is not a planet decision. I do not question his intelligence. I do however question his integrity.
In his discussion over Intelligent Design Dr. Tyson built a
straw man argument, and backhandedly insults anyone who would insert god as
simply being ignorant. He does it with
great aplomb, and speaks with authority.
Yet he attempts to misuse history to meet his ends.
straw man argument, and backhandedly insults anyone who would insert god as
simply being ignorant. He does it with
great aplomb, and speaks with authority.
Yet he attempts to misuse history to meet his ends.
This isn’t the first time I have seen him try this trick
either. On Cosmos he did this concerning
man influenced Climate Change. I wrote a
synopsis of this elsewhere and I will post it again here later. The point is, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a
fraud of sorts. He is simply a
con-man. He has a habit of deliberately
misrepresenting the truth to fit his needs and whatever agenda he might
have. He does this the best way
possible, by throwing around very true things and then veiling his lies
carefully only when the suit that agenda.
It makes him dangerous, and it diffuses the learning process along the
way.
either. On Cosmos he did this concerning
man influenced Climate Change. I wrote a
synopsis of this elsewhere and I will post it again here later. The point is, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a
fraud of sorts. He is simply a
con-man. He has a habit of deliberately
misrepresenting the truth to fit his needs and whatever agenda he might
have. He does this the best way
possible, by throwing around very true things and then veiling his lies
carefully only when the suit that agenda.
It makes him dangerous, and it diffuses the learning process along the
way.
If much of what a person of authority says is true, but a
portion is a deliberate lie, then what portion of what the person says should
be taken as truth? Dr. Tyson not only
hurts the process of finding truth, he hurts Atheists and Skeptics along the
way, because by abusing his own authority he discredits those who would quote
him without question.
portion is a deliberate lie, then what portion of what the person says should
be taken as truth? Dr. Tyson not only
hurts the process of finding truth, he hurts Atheists and Skeptics along the
way, because by abusing his own authority he discredits those who would quote
him without question.
