Shorter Richard Sternberg: Beginning to Decipher the SINE Signal:
If science fiction weren’t fiction, ID would be really good science.
In responding tangentially to our earlier criticism of him for employing arguments of a paranoid schizophrenic nature which treated movies as if they were evidence of how science works, Sternberg pens an essay in which we’re to pretend that we find monoliths on Earth’s two moons and they send us crazy signals that make our computers suddenly intelligent.
He quotes a hypothetical critic replying:
We think youâre a nice guy, but your arguments are insane.
Assuming for the moment he’s referring to my earlier reply, I think he’s missing the point. I wrote:
Now, I’m not claiming that Sternberg is anything â paranoid schizophrenic or scientist â like John Nash. I’m saying that the ID argument is hard to distinguish from the ravings of paranoid schizophrenics.
It’s true that I was calling his arguments insane (and his new ones still are), but I never said I think he’s a nice guy.
Note also that Sternberg can’t even keep his own bizarre moon analogy right. The moons are supposed to be like the genomes of rats and mice, and the monoliths are repeated motifs in the genome that don’t have anything to do with making computers homicidal. His analog also have lunar scientists who are meant to be the equivalent of evolutionary biologists, who think that the monoliths aren’t products of evil aliens, and who “argue that we already knew all there was to know about that moon back in 1859.”
By analogy, then, he’s claiming that evolutionary biologists say that we knew all there was to know about the genome in 1859. This seems unlikely.