I’ll get to some sort of reconstruction of this post later on. But first we must explain the wider context in which it was the case that PZ MYERS had to wipe this post that I will be attempting to reconstruct.
This universe is not big enough for the current version of evolutionary theory on the one hand …. and the theory of the Big Bang on the other. The Young-Universe creationism that the Bangers stick up for, presents not only an unscientific theory, but also a theory that clearly doesn’t allow enough time for the complexity we see in the natural world. The Big Bang has to go if evolution wants to survive.
Well-wishers of evolution, as a theory, must realise this and deep-six the Big Bang dementia. But they are not inclined to do so. Since they tend to be members of a wider science-maffia.
The people who are now wanting to cut out what ought to be friendly competition with their own theories are not just dogmatic and moronic about evolution. Putting Dawkins himself aside, the tendency is for such people to be totalitarian and absolutely idiotic about all areas of science. The totalitarian streak in this orthodoxy, and the utter lack of evidence for this orthodoxies manifold positions is astonishing……… even if the main thrust of the theory of evolution is indeed certain. This science maffia is not just a problem for biology. It is in physics, its in climate science, economic science. Its everywhere we look.
It is quite strange that a smooth and intelligent fellow like Dawkins could allow himself to be surrounded by so many mindless Gramscian nitwits. Get Dawkins out of your mind when you think about this issue. Because he is not representative of the sort of ugly low-IQ reptile that make up the ranks of the science maffia. And yet such people are incredibly thick on the ground even on his own blog. OK so the Richard Dawkins blog banned me. But they also banned “Oil Is Mastery” who was being scrupulously polite.
The science maffia sticks up for anti-catastrophism in cosmology. For special relativity, general relativity and other substitute religions of this nature. For viewing the little world as if it has no physicality. For mixing up hypothetical objects with hypothetical concepts. For giving space, which has no shape, properties that only something which had shape could possibly possess. They believe in the theory of continental drift, and yet cannot give anyone a set of force vectors which could explain the movement of these continents. Not through plate tectonics that is. They are against the theory of Abiotic hydro-carbons, not as a gentle dispute but with dogmatism. They can be relied on to deny that the centralisation of anti-Malaria policy had nothing to do with the eradication of many millions of black kids.
The science maffia sticks up for the Keynesian multiplier, with such vigor that both sides of the spectrum of Australian economists believe devoutly in this idiotic idea. They fucking better or thats their career down the toilet. Yet its a stupid idea. A childish idea. Without even the maths barrier that stupid and childish ideas in physics have for their protection.
Most dire of all is their irrational believe in the global warming scam. So strange is this intense tenet of the science maffia, that it appears to be the case that just a few tenths of a degree warming in winter for the LapLanders would be seen as a catastrophic problem the likes of which has never befallen the environment in recorded history and prior. Meanwhile it seems likely that actual catastrophes loom down on us from all sides, whilst this fantasy-catastrophe is being entertained.
Now I have no intention of falling for this ruse where stupid-town gets to use Richard Dawkins as a human shield. My beef is not with Dawkins (for the most part) and few people are going to look more plausible once the camera starts rolling then Richard. And actually I think a great deal like Richard in a lot of ways. Here is an edited version of something he’s written for this blog. I’ve edited out a lot of the repetitive excuse-making and insults.
“Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could………..
…….and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario.
……..I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet
(The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity………
…….Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe).”
Once the excuses and insults are edited out it can be seen that Richard Dawkins’ core reasoning is very similar to my own. Except that he is too dim, or too worried about his science maffia backing, to reject the notion that we only have “13 billion years to play with.” But the fact is that the complexity of the cell forces us, for the time being, to reject such a silly time limit. The universe is far older than 13 billion years. Far too old for science to be able to tell us how old the universe is. We have absolutely no reason to believe in this time limit in the first place. And yet the science maffia demands that we must believe.
MORE MUCH LATER.