Understanding != Source

I recently read a horrible article filled with numerous fallacies claiming that Richard Dawkins is wrong above evolution because of quantum mechanics. Well, first of all, I must point out that quantum mechanics does not disprove evolution. String theory does not disprove evolution.

After this bold assertion the article went on to say that a god is the source for the laws of quantum physics because geometric figured like strings and triangles are mental constructs. Basically, it uses the same flawed intelligent design argument but it adds a few more assertions.

Because the article claims that strings and triangles are mental constructs, they must first have existed inside a mind somewhere, right? Wrong. The ability to understand something does not make any source for that something more probable. Also, I am shocked by the lack of people who can understand one dimensional space which these “strings” are. To consider a string to be an actual string (which I’m guessing this article did as it wasn’t exactly clear on that point) would be a straw man fallacy.

What did they achieve?

Nothing. They took the already refuted argument for intelligent design and added more unbacked assertions! Adding more assertions to a faulty argument does not make it true. Here is an example:

A god does not exist and the earth takes 317 days to revolve around the sun.

Does the unproven assertion that the earth takes 317 days to rotate around the sun have any affect on the validity of god? No. Even if I was right, it doesn’t matter how long it takes as it has nothing to do with god.


All intelligent design is absolutely crazy no matter how you put it. I think my debate with this guy on YouTube about intelligent design has come to an end because he has finally realized it is nonsense as well. There is no controversy. Evolution is an accepted fact; there is evidence for it. There is no need to “teach the controversy” when there is no controversy.


4 thoughts on “Understanding != Source

  1. I think his point is something like, “In quantum mechanics, nothing really ‘exists’ without being observed. The universe exists. Therefore, it must have been observed. Therefore, there was an observer, and it must have been God.” Of course it’s not phrased like that: Instead there’s a mystical, cloudy handwaving that doesn’t approach a solid position. The Chopra-esque vagueness is likely deliberate: Make sure your point is unclear enough that you can reform it or back out as necessary, while appropriating scientific terms to lend yourself an air of credibility.

    if he’s got such a bee in his bonnet about only science being able to get at the truth, why use a laughable interpretation of a specific area of said science in an attempt to undermine it?

    “So that it is matter that emerges from mind, rather than mind from matter” — this is as close to an identifiable assertion as the article gets, and it’s meaningless. It doesn’t follow as a logical consequence of his preceding, confused ideas that manage to name-check string theory, geometric platonic ideals and multiverses. An undergraduate grab-bag of muddled references from a professor who should know (or think) better.

    • I now see how he could be saying this as well and I have previously pondered a way to disprove an all-knowing god via quantum physics which would likely apply here. If god did observe the universe with his all-knowing powers, there would then be one fixed history for all particles which would not allow for the results found in the Double Slit Experiment: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

      Of course, that does not explain the question of origin, but neither does his article. Something does not need to be observed to come into existence, it is just that all alternate histories will co-exist simultaneously (something which I don’t think the author can grasp). I am not sure how familiar with quantum physics you are so please forgive me if I am talking below your level. I do try to make my blog approachable to people who are not familiar with these topics as well.

      Thanks for your comment.

  2. There is one particular answer to that problem in physics. I was reading this in one of Michio Kaku’s books, and if I remember correctly (since I don’t have the book anymore) he wrote that a way out of “ever watchful eye” is “everything happens”, but in different dimensions (or worlds). An infinity of worlds, each second expanding and multiplying by the number of probable things.

    It means that if I shoot myself in the head, there would be a world that the gun didn’t work, and I’m still alive. And considering this, there is a world that in it, Hitler won the war; A world that has been destroyed by nuclear clashes of US and USSR, even a world that humans didn’t evolve in it.

    It seems that science fiction has also become fascinated with this idea.

    • Yes, I am already familiar with that property of quantum physics. If one must say that the world exists in its current state because a god is observing it, they would be horribly wrong and it would violate experimental evidence.

      The evidence I’m talking about is the Double-slit Experiment. The ability for multiple histories to exist at the same time has already been demonstrated in that experiment.

      But even more interesting that is an idea shown in the article Back from the Future which was in Discover magazine April 2010. The article explained the evidence of information flowing from the future to the past. If you haven’t read it and manage to get your hands on this issue, I highly recommend reading it.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s