Pretty much every person out there who tries to support creationism on some claimant scientific and/or logical basis have one thing in common -- all of them lie, distort, and make a mockery of reality in order to get the job done. I've had a number of whirls at the joke that is William Demsbski, and I allude quite a bit to core failures he makes in the nonsense he publishes when I did my post about creationists and their screwy ideas about math. Well, recently, someone pointed me to this fellow named Chris Langan. I'd never heard of the guy until then, and I really didn't care. Among the reasons given as to why I should consider taking what this guy says seriously is because his IQ has been tested as being around 195-210... Ummm... okay.
Well, I tried looking up what I could about the fellow, and actual examples were pretty sparse. I did find a rather dismal performance on 1 vs 100... a show I had never even seen prior to this, but whatever. It's not really fair to judge someone's intellect based on knowledge of trivia, as it is called 'trivia' for a reason. But I think it is also worth mentioning that even if I am to take his intellectual capacity at face value, that doesn't really serve in any way to validate anything he has to say. So already, the fact that the man's work was suggested to me on the basis of what can effectively be called an invocation of the argument from authority fallacy does not bode well.
Anyway, the so-called "theory" I was pointed to and suggested to read (by someone who had not read a word of it himself, of course) was something that Langan calls his "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" or CTMU. To be honest, I've yet to completely read through this work, as even a small section reveals massive wrongness within. I guess I can probably agree with the theists on one thing, though : This work may well be the very best that theists can offer.
... and it's still eminently moronic.
Well, I tried looking up what I could about the fellow, and actual examples were pretty sparse. I did find a rather dismal performance on 1 vs 100... a show I had never even seen prior to this, but whatever. It's not really fair to judge someone's intellect based on knowledge of trivia, as it is called 'trivia' for a reason. But I think it is also worth mentioning that even if I am to take his intellectual capacity at face value, that doesn't really serve in any way to validate anything he has to say. So already, the fact that the man's work was suggested to me on the basis of what can effectively be called an invocation of the argument from authority fallacy does not bode well.
Anyway, the so-called "theory" I was pointed to and suggested to read (by someone who had not read a word of it himself, of course) was something that Langan calls his "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" or CTMU. To be honest, I've yet to completely read through this work, as even a small section reveals massive wrongness within. I guess I can probably agree with the theists on one thing, though : This work may well be the very best that theists can offer.
... and it's still eminently moronic.
