The Universe as The Ultimate Free Lunch

What makes a certified astrophysicist spread clichés like supposed neoliberal quote of the free lunch? At the Origins symposium a few weeks ago, a interesting panel was put together with Paul Davies as its chair discussing shitty things like the uniqueness of our universe and a few other small matters. One of the participants professor of physics Andrei Linde correctly purports that it is strange that the multiverse theory is coming into prominence now, when it has been around for some thirty years already. He quotes the panelist Alan Guth who talked about the creation of a universe as the ultimate free lunch. This is all part of the multiverse theory where one universe inflates another, and so on, connected to contemporary string theory.

Recall creationist William Dembski‘s book No Free Lunch – Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence. In the book Dembski claims that Michael Behe‘s notion of irreducible complexity is an indication that there is a designer involved in creation of the world.
Well, the most dangerous notion put forward by Dembski and his peers, is one he seldom admits; the search for glitches in our common scientific strata, instead of meaning and congruity. It turns every little creationist to a science critic and evolution-doubter. If God shows herself himself in the small inconsequences of science and explanations of the world, everyone will do their best in trying to never be convinced by basic or complex scientific theories. It is dangerous and spooky and should be rebutted. See the discussion from the symposium as a start.

Taggad , ,

3 thoughts on “The Universe as The Ultimate Free Lunch

  1. Alexander Stasinski skriver:

    Surely God-of-the-gaps arguments are naive and silly, but on the other hand all scientific paradigms have been overturned after small anomalies first appeared, and later grew sufficiently big. Attempting to falsify scientific theories is the way science should proceed, and it would be very strange indeed to think that the Darwinian paradigm is the unique miraculous scientific theory which never has to be modified.

    (By the way, it was Paul Davies)

  2. Robert Stasinski skriver:

    Yes, sorry, mixed the names up of Paul Davies with the great philosopher of art Stephen Davies!

    Darwinian evolution has already been modified through evolutionary psychology, so called neural darwinism and Dawkins’ selfish gene theory.

    I do not have a problem with evangelical scientists or other religious scholars, but we must be wary of the effects of the discussion if we grant ID proponents access to the same scientific corridor as scientists. The discussion that follows must be held with rational arguments, but aslso with psychological, economic and social interests in mind.

  3. Alexander Stasinski skriver:

    It seems to me that neural darwinism and selfish gene theory are not really challenges to the darwinian paradigm, but more like ”normal science” in the Kuhnian sense.
    One should note that a paradigm shift doesn’t have to completely contradict what was before. Just like Newton, Einstein said that gravity exists, but the theories are radically different. Would it not be reasonable to expect something similar happening within evolutionary theory?


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in: Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut / Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: