MIT Cosmologists Take Our Advice

After getting a snubbing in our 02/21/2005 commentary, which advocated he and his MIT colleague Alan Guth take up truck driving, David Kaiser, took our advice – with a thinly veiled smirk:

Well, at least someone is still reading Science with a passion.  As for the rest of us in the cosmic-evolution business, we’ll just have to keep on truckin’.

This was the ending of an article by Kaiser in the November-December issue of American Scientist (not to be confused with Scientific American), a publication of Sigma Xi, the scientific research society.¹
    In his article, Kaiser undertook to explain why creation groups, long targeting the biologists and geologists, have “only lately taken on physicists and cosmologists” after a long period of what he considers peaceful co-existence (e.g., Einstein, Lemaitre).  His two-fold conclusion was that (1) recent “bans on teaching the big bang” (only one ineffective and unrepresentative example given) have brought the abstruse issues of cosmology into the public awareness, and (2) the prestige of physics has plummeted since its pinnacle after World War II, in part due to funding cuts but also “physicists’ internal divisions and the obviously speculative nature of recent work” — thus a new “concerted attack” by critics who have “learned to leverage the power of the internet.”  That’s where CEH comes in:

I stumbled onto this thriving, wired network two years ago, after my colleague Alan H. Guth and I published a review of recent cosmological research in Science.  About a week after our article appeared, Guth received an e-mail message directing him to a rebuttal of our piece, posted on a creationist Web site.  That response included dozens of hyperlinks to like-minded “refutations’ of the big bang, inflationary cosmology, string theory and the rest.  These sites boasted high production values and good graphics.

Noting all the hyperlinks to creationist and intelligent design resources here, Kaiser seemed to have demonstrated a vast lightweight conspiracy to attack the hallowed halls of the cosmologists.  All that seemed necessary to demonstrate the point was to mention the advice about truck driving.

1.  David Kaiser, “The Other Evolution Wars,” American Scientist Vol 95, No 6), November-December 2007, pp. 518-525.

It was nice to get some compliments from Dr. Kaiser for the graphics and high production values, but of course he was not about to concede any point of substance to creationists.  That would be anathema inside The Guild, even a minor blush to the suggestion that a little shame might be in order.
    A little investigation by an unbiased observer, however, should reveal that modern cosmologists do not need any creationist help looking silly: viz., 07/27/2004, 03/11/2004, 06/20/2003, 06/18/2003, 05/02/2003, 08/16/2005, 07/23/2007, 04/13/2007, etc.  If they are worried about possible nonsense that might come from creationists, why not rein in the secularist popularizers, who are truckin’ all over the sidewalk? (11/01/2007, 03/08/2007).
    Anyone familiar with the history and philosophy of science would surely realize that there is no way under God’s starry heaven to scientifically justify many of the things being claimed by modern cosmologists today.  To be off by 120 orders of magnitude, to require a universe composed of 96% imponderable substances and occult forces, and to seriously consider we each have clones in countless parallel universes is to invite scrutiny if not ridicule.  Much of that comes from within the ranks of The Guild already.  But then to posit a Cosmic Lottery with 10¹⁰⁰⁰ universes (none of which is observable even in theory) should turn the heads of any philosopher or logician.  It looks like a dodge from a clear inference of design, tantamount to escaping falsification with magic.  What would Popper think?
    It would have been nice to see a little humility, therefore, just a hint of a possibility that cosmologists might be on the wrong track and maybe should consider non-materialist alternatives seriously, like intelligent design.  If listening to creationists is beneath their dignity, how about listening to Paul Davies or Robert Jastrow who, both appearing in The Privileged Planet, acknowledged the design inference and the inability of materialism to account for it?
    Similarly, Astronomy columnist Bob Berman applied his own down-to-earth, common-sense analysis to the current situation.  Without creationist input as far we know, it was clear to him that cosmology needs a serious “time out” because “cosmologists are starting to resemble naked emperors parading before the mass media.”  He scorned how “each pronouncement is delivered with pomp and flair” when in fact it is a shameful display of arrogance and ignorance.  Instead of scientific rigor, imagination rules: “Throw the math this way, that way, tweak the equations, set fire to the physics building, nothing matters,” he exclaimed.  “It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Stephen Hawking.”  That was in 2004, but he just recently let the cosmologists have it between the eyes again (09/29/2007), indicating that nothing has improved: “It would be nice, however, if cosmologists would put a lid on their arrogant ghetto-talk about their latest theory of everything and admit – just once in a while – that their knowledge is a single snowflake in the blizzard of the unknown.”
    That’s why we didn’t need to say much in the 2005 entry but to quote the wizards at length and let them air their own arrogance and fall on their own folly.  We hope the suggestion to take up truck driving was an act of mercy.
    Bill Watterson’s Calvin and Hobbes cartoon strip is sometimes the perfect parody of adult misbehavior.  One story appeared in the collection There’s Treasure Everywhere (pp. 50-52) that seemed apropos.  (Note: The names might need swapping, because the materialist was Thomas Hobbes and the theist was John Calvin, but subsitute whatever living characters you think fit.)
    In this episode, Calvin has an assignment to write a paper that debates some issue.  He asks Hobbes for ideas.

Hobbes: What do you care about?
Calvin: I don’t care about issues!  I’ve got better things to do than argue with every wrong-headed crackpot with an ignorant opinion!  I’m a busy man!  I say, agree with me or go take a hike!  I’m right, period!  End of discussion.
Hobbes: Umm… right.
Calvin: There, see?  Everybody’s happy!

Still, the homework deadline looms.  Calvin has an idea – a Thinking Cap!  He finds a metal collander in the kitchen and sets to work.

Calvin: Next we’ll need to attach those 1 and 0 strings and a grounding string.
Hobbes: Why a grounding string?
Calvin: It’s like a lightning rod for brainstorms.  I want to keep my ideas grounded in reality.
Hobbes: I think you’re too late….

Work all completed, Calvin puts on the Thinking Cap and has Hobbes turn it on.  Click.  Brzap.  Nothing apparent happens, except Calvin claims he feels smarter already, and Hobbes perceives that Calvin’s head has grown larger.  The knowledge begins to flow:

Calvin: My powerful brain is unraveling the mysteries of the universe!  It’s amazing!  All natural laws can be reduced to one simple, unifying equation!
Hobbes: Really, what is it?
Calvin: Already my powerful brain is bored with such simple problems and is now working on why girls are so obnoxious.

Substitute creationists for girls and some remarkable parallels emerge in the local universe.