I’m not sure what to say about this, other than to say that you’ll need a hefty dose of credulity to buy into the crap that this guy is spewing (via Ivy Privy):
In “The Search for Intelligent Design,” author Duane Whitlock, 89, describes in scientific terms the structure of the universe and how it came to be.
…
The retired U.S. Navy Captain said he’s convinced his experiences cracking codes led him to a new understanding of science. Whitlock hopes to unleash these discoveries in his new book.
…
After Whitlock learned how to decode man-made structures, he wondered if he could figure out natural and scientific systems. Whitlock said he discovered that the universe was based on threes.For example, there are three forces in the universe, electricity, magnetism and gravity and three primary colors – red, blue and yellow.
Hold on – first, physicists generally accept four fundamental forces in the Universe – gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear forces and weak nuclear forces. Every freshman science major knows this.
Second, there are three primary colors (for humans) because that’s how human eyes work. Birds, for instance, see four primary colors, and some other animals even more.
There are only three things, Whitlock said, that make up this universe – matter, energy and design. For example, in a chair, the wood comes from a tree, the design comes from man as well the energy to construct it.
“The mind is the intelligent part of intelligent design,” Whitlock said.
Design is a functional assemblage of matter, not independent of it (where does design fit into E=mc^2 ??). He displays the beginnings to such understanding in his chair analogy, but he skips right over the issue of design versus self-ordering, and assumes the former on a whim – that whim of course being that which theology teaches us.
I’d like to think that Whitlock is just stupid – and he is skeptically deficient, to be sure – but that’s too simplistic an answer. The answer, I’m sure, is much more difficult to explain, and probably involves a good dose of psychology, among other things. And I assume that his views of Godly design in the Universe is inspired by his awe of its richness (an awe I share), so I suppose I can sympathize a little.
But if he’s trying to get such ideas published, who on Earth would be absurd enough to publish such obviously incorrect notions of the Universe into a book??
Oh, you can get anything published these days. See “vanity presses.”
By: Mustafa Mond, FCD on January 5, 2007
at 10:45 am
Color Vision: one of nature’s wonders Dogs have two kinds of color photoreceptors. Birds, fish and reptiles have 4 or 5. And then there’s the mantis shrimp:
By: ivy privy on January 5, 2007
at 1:01 pm
I see that in January 2000 Silicon Valley Magazine ran an article about ID featuring quotes from Phillip Johnson with the title The Search for Intelligent Design in the Universe.
By: ivy privy on January 5, 2007
at 4:23 pm
If anyone wants to buy Whitlock’s book, Here’s some info:
The Search for Intelligent Design
by Duane L. Whitlock
ISBN 0-533-15373-5 / 0533153735
Vantage Press
Hardcover
Yup, Vantage Press is a vanity publisher.
From their How Does It Work page:
By: ivy privy on January 5, 2007
at 4:31 pm
Afarensis found an interesting piece on someone who married a Creationist
By: ivy privy on January 5, 2007
at 5:15 pm
ivy privy -
Thanks for the comment on Mantis shrimp – that totaly made my day and gave me interesting ideas for a sci-fi story. . .
By: DuWayne on January 5, 2007
at 7:33 pm
This guy sounds a lot like I did when I was a teen. I was happy to embrace any notion that supported my faith and sounded reasonable – especialy if it was backed up by “scientists.” I think this is the case for most who embrace ID – it certainly is for a few of my friends. None of them are stupid, by any stretch and a couple are exceptionaly bright. But they are very excited about ID. Even going as far as shushing me when I point out that there is no reasonable evidence for it. They just say that it needs to gain more popular acceptance for more research funds – once the “real” research begins, of course we’ll see results.
It is rather sad to see people who are very intelligent and mostly rational, embrace this crap.
By: DuWayne on January 5, 2007
at 7:41 pm
DuWayne,
You could point out to them that funds have been readily available, but still no applications for research grants came in, and the DI now claims to have a secret research program.
By: ivy privy on January 6, 2007
at 10:20 am
Of course everything is based on threes! There are really only three values, arithmetically: bigger, smaller, and just right. I call it the Three Bears principle. :-)
Now, if we can only get those pesky binary computers to run on threes: instead of 5V and 0V, it could be +5, -5 and zero.
By: Monado on January 6, 2007
at 10:59 am
Actually the three basics here on earth where we can see them are rules (e.g. design, natural laws such as gravity, genetic code), materials, and time. That’s what it takes to take a baby or an oak tree. Notice how I’ve cleverly switched the category from “fundamental forces” to “things needed to get something constructed.”
By: Monado on January 6, 2007
at 11:04 am
Just a correction, but there are really just three forces. Physicists have unified the electomagnetic force and the weak nuclear force into what is sometimes called the “electro-weak” force. The Wikipedia article can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-weak
By: Paul on January 19, 2007
at 12:15 pm
While we’re at it, um… the three primary colors are not red, blue, and yellow. RGB monitors anyone? Actually, the primary colors are red, blue and green if you’re talking additive mixing and cyan, yellow, and magenta if you’re talking about subtractive mixing. Note that the primaries for additive mixing are the secondaries for subtractive mixing and vice versa. Oh yeah, going back to the photoreceptor commentary. Our cones are sensitive to, you guessed, red, blue and green.
By: Inquisitive Raven on January 20, 2007
at 8:26 pm
Obviously incorrect notions?
You mean like the earth is not the center of the universe?
The sun is not perfect? The earth is not round?
Plate tectonics is obviously absurd?
There is no ether as a medium for propagation of light?
There is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference?
E=mc^2?
The concepts above were “obviously incorrect” or absurd in their time. Just because you can’t wrap your brain around some concepts in your time doesn’t make them wrong. The proof of a natural theory is in its ability to predict nature.
“Hold on – first, physicists generally accept four fundamental forces in the Universe – gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear forces and weak nuclear forces. Every freshman science major knows this.”
He “knows this”? Or does he “believe it” because that is the dogma he has been taught? Then what is GUT all about?
By: Sam on January 21, 2007
at 2:56 am
Sam, the theories you stated above where thought true based on the best available evidense. Some still are (the sun isn’t perfect, the earth is oval, the earth isn’t the centre of the universe, there IS NO ETHER as a medium for light, there IS NO such thing as an absolute frame of reference and E does equal mc^2). The ideas of this man and others like hims were also the best idea based on what was known at the time. Thing is, that time was hundreds of years ago. When a theory is proved wrong it is abandoned as should have been this clap trap.
By: josh on February 1, 2007
at 10:29 am
He was a serviceman in the Navy. If it weren’t for him and his colleagues, we just might be speaking Japanese right now. Have some respect for those who put their lives on the line so YOU could live a good life. He is no longer alive and he’s missed sorely.
By: gnick on September 1, 2008
at 12:47 am
WTF? When did I disrespect him?
The point was that the premise of his book was absurd. And it is. End of story.
By: Dan on September 1, 2008
at 4:52 pm