Friday, June 14, 2013


Worst Metaphor Ever?

The ever ridiculous David Klinghoffer may have (with help from Paul Nelson) come up with the worst version of 'The Watchmaker' argument ever. You see, when it comes to matters of science, you should listen not to scientists but, instead, to novelists,* such as Vladimir Nabokov, Kurt Vonnegut and Dean Koontz:
Paul Nelson hit the nail on the head. I didn't transcribe his exact remarks, but Paul explained that a novelist is in the business of creating worlds and so not surprisingly recognizes the work of another designer. Moreover, said Dr. Nelson, when King's publisher cuts a royalty check for his books, the check is made out to the creator, Mr. King, not to "the laws of physics." Or you might add, to "a law such as gravity," as Stephen Hawking might prefer to say.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
Let's see how this works:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a paperback book upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the paperback happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had given, that for anything I knew the paperback might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the paperback as well as for the stone; why is it not admissible in that second case as in the first?
Even better is the argumentum ad publisher!

But if publishers are supposed to make the checks out to the actual creators of worlds, why aren't they making them out to "God" instead of God's supposed creation?

Such are the arguments for ID. Confused people making confused arguments to confuse people who are likely equally confused.

* I have no idea if those people are really IDists, and why would I care?

Yes, think of the intelligent design of shmoos, centaurs, and ents.

Those are things which are intelligently designed. Unfortunately, they don't exist.

Which tells us that intelligent design is not enough to account for the existence of something.

Which tells us that intelligent design is not enough to account for the existence of something.

Insightful and cogent as usual, Tom. Thanks.
Nelson did indeed hit the nail on the head--novelists create worlds that are mere fantasy, just as are the explanations of the Creationists.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education