“Some Scientist”

About 10 years ago, a religious person that knows me decided that I needed to come back to religion and to that end provided me with a book. I won’t give that worthless piece of shit author any publicity here, and it isn’t important to understand the point I’m trying to get across. But bottom line, the author related this story:

As I came home late one evening, I turned on the TV and saw the David Letterman show was on.  His guest was an 80-year-old scientist from England who had just won the Nobel Prize.  I love the British accent, so I was drawn to listen to the conversation.
The scientist made the statement, “David, we have reached the point in science where we know for a fact that there was a beginning to this universe.”  Letterman suddenly straightened up in his chair and looked with surprise at his guest.  He said, “Wait a minute.  Wait just a minute.  If we know that there is a beginning to this universe, doesn’t that imply…. that there must be a Beginner to this universe?”….
….The scientist’s response was amazing.  He stared at the floor for a moment, then looked at Letterman and replied “That is a place we don’t like to go in science.”

Bam! In your face, atheists! A TOP SCIENTIST admitted that these atheist scientists are just ignoring this uncomfortable problem of how everything MUST have been designed, because they know that only God could have done it. Drop mike!

Only no. And let me jump to the end real quick. Religious people, if you find this an intriguing story, and it helps you confirm your belief in a god, then you are just being stupid. You are being stupid, and you have no idea how shit works. Read a different fucking book sometime.

And back to the present, just why is this story so NOT intriguing? Because everything about it is bullshit, that’s why. Let’s break it down.

The characterization of what scientists do is childish.

Scientists do not spend their day, sitting around, thinking about things, contemplating the meaning of life and philosophizing about the possibility of magic. Scientists look for evidence. And once they have a lot of evidence, they check that evidence against a hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a generalization, it is a really specific statement that can be used to make predictions. Using these predictions, the scientists can strengthen the hypothesis when they turn out correct. Then they use the evidence and testing and results of predictions to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Then they check each other’s work. Only the hypotheses that survive the specification, evidence, prediction, testing, and checking process get to stay around, while the others are discarded. That’s what scientists do. They don’t imply, they don’t guess, they don’t jump to conclusions. They demonstrate.

If your proposition is general and wishy-washy, then it doesn’t matter to science because there is nothing to confirm or deny, and nothing to predict. If you aren’t looking for evidence, you aren’t doing science. And if you aren’t checking each other’s work, you aren’t doing science. And if your work gets checked, and found lacking, but you keep saying that same thing anyway, then you definitely are not doing science.

Religious people characterize science in these childish ways because they don’t understand critical thinking. Religion doesn’t look for evidence, it looks for excuses. Religion doesn’t get specific. And religion does not hold itself accountable to the predictions made by it’s practitioners, nor even the criticisms of other believing practitioners. Watching the religious discuss science is like watching a 3 year old pretend to drive a car. They just do it wrong on every level.

So no, a scientist is not going to admit to being afraid of considering an unclear proposition. A real scientist, in that same situation, would say something to the tune of “A person can imply all sorts of random conclusions. But we scientists don’t do that because we don’t have the luxury. If you want to demonstrate a god, make a specific proposition, tell me what would be evidence for or against that proposition, make a prediction, and let’s check it out.”

Nobel Laureate who?

After reading the story about this Nobel Laureate, I was already skeptical that it was real, based on just how stupid the story was. But I was also curious who this fellow may actually be. I started doing some checking, and I’ll explain my methodology.

  1. I looked up the name of every Nobel prize winner ever. Since the book was published in 2005, I trimmed the list to Laureates from 2005 and before. I did not even trim it by nationality or gender, despite the author being very clear that it was an English guy. No, I wanted to check every one of them. I didn’t even limit myself to Laureates in the other fields.
  2. I pulled up the listing of every guest on the David Letterman show ever, and cross referenced the list with Nobel Laureates.
  3. I searched both google and YouTube with David Letterman and the name of every Nobel Laureate in science that was male and alive during the run of the show.
  4. I emailed the author and asked if he could provide the name of the Nobel Laureate.
  5. I emailed the David Letterman show and asked if they could help me remember the name of a Nobel Laureate in science that had been on the show.
  6. I googled various other combinations including dropping the Nobel Laureate thing to just include scientists and David Letterman, scientists on TV, and sections of the specific wording from the book.

Now, it will come as no surprise to any of my regular readers that the entire story was made up. The only Nobel Laureates to appear as guests on the David Letterman show were Jimmy Carter and Henry Kissinger, neither of which are forgettable names, neither of which are scientists, and neither of which are English. One other Laureate made cameo appearances. Robert Mundell appeared 6 times on the show, never as a guest on the couch. The first he did the infamous top 10 list, three times he read jokes, once he read song lyrics, and one time he read from Paris Hilton’s book. Mundell got his Nobel in economics, and is Canadian.

Letterman did have “kid scientists” on every now and then, where young teenagers would do science experiments for the audience. None of them were in their 80s, English, or Nobel Laureates, and none of them discussed philosophy or theology on the couch.

The book author’s staff emailed me back that they didn’t have any idea who the person could be, didn’t seem interested in helping me figure out who it was, and stated that it didn’t matter because the idea was the important bit. In other words, they don’t care if the lynch-pin in their argument (that the author spent considerable time talking about) is actually true. They care that the propaganda gets through. And the propaganda was clear: Scientists are trying to prove their god doesn’t exist, but they just can’t do it.

It is a glaring example of the straw-man fallacy. Make scientists seem stupid, and put words into fake scientists mouths, and then blow it away with your weak-ass bullshit. Oh, I forgot to mention earlier, avoiding doing science and avoiding scientific criticisms by making up fake shit and pretending that it’s what scientists say so you can win an argument….. is also not science.

Same old story, or lying for Jesus.

These fucking apologists and their books. It’s like a bad record player that keeps skipping on the worst lyrics of the worst song on the worst record from the worst artist. “Some scientist admitted”, “some scientist said”, “some scientists revealed”, “some scientist told me”.

Right next to the story about how they met “some college student”, resulting in the student having an epiphany and turning to god, the “some scientist” story has to be the oldest bunch of crap in the book. It’s a strawman, but more importantly, it is an outright lie. This worthless apologist, therefore, either did one of two things. He either made up the story entirely, or he heard the story once and just adopted it as his own without bothering to check the details. I don’t know which is true, but in the one he is a charlatan and the other an incompetent, dishonest asshole. Neither are good choices, and neither are the kinds of people we should be listening to.

The problem isn’t that SOME people lie for Jesus, it’s that literally all of them lie for Jesus. Either they are making up the lie themselves, or they are repeating a lie uncritically. The entire religion is founded on lies. Entirely. Completely. Scientists aren’t afraid of answering questions, you are being fooled, and the bible is propaganda not history. One more lie doesn’t make it better.

And if that doesn’t convince you, “Some God” told me that your god is fake.

The Spartan Atheist

32 thoughts on ““Some Scientist”

  1. As a self-awarded Nobel Prize winner who has, in my own mind, been on various talk shows over the years, I can verify that a god or gods do not exist. Having made that statement, I hereby award myself another Nobel Prize AND a Pulitzer Prize for making it. $Amen$

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Wow! Quite a rant! But so very true!

    And this — And if your work gets checked, and found lacking, but you keep saying that same thing anyway, then you definitely are not doing science. — is Truth wrapped up into 24 words!

    Good post! (As usual.)

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Heh, you did a good job exposing their lying asses. The thing is, they rely on people not fact checking them and blindly accepting them at face value. Of course, most religious people will do just that.
    I remember years ago reading a book about people who claimed to have NDE and experience Hell. The thing is, this book provided “references” for their claims. Me being the good student decided to try and verify these. But one of the so called true stories was taken directly from some apocalyptic poetry or something, and then passed off as real 🙄.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Lol! I’ve yet to find a story that really supports their arguments that isn’t just bullshit.

      Chasing down their lies is almost like a treasure hunt where you know there is a prize.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. So they made up the Laureate, and then put him a popular show. That’s quite the act, if you ask me

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I believe these BS artists really believe atheists will not bother checking the story, they think we will believe anything we are told, similar to their own stupid religious beliefs and blindness to check the crap in the Bible.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I don’t think they care if atheists check. They want to feed the BS to their followers so they keep giving money.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Excellent job checking the story — what you did was itself a good example of testing a claim against evidence.

    Religionist writers and yarn-spinners, like bad science-fiction movies, usually depict scientists as talking in ways that just don’t ring true to how scientists really talk. It’s to be expected since they never bother to learn much about what they’re “arguing” against.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Not only do they not bother, they recoil at the idea of actually learning what is going on.


      1. These theist failures to check facts are the legacy of their emotionally indoctrinated minds, one and one will always add up to three as far as they are concerned.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. what about Sir isaac Newton who is celebrated as a greatest scientist in this world is he got an emotionally indoctrinated minds?. He firmly established scientifically and mathematically through calculus the order of universe and gravity as God’s hand in everything.


  8. Except: Jimmy Carter has a Bachelor Degree in Science from the Naval Academy. I have seen scientists commit the same logical fallacies that people of faith do. Our survival depends on ethical behavior and appropriate use of technology.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, Bob. ALL people commit logical fallacies. In science, people check your work to make sure you don’t. In religion, the fallacies are given a platform. They WANT to hear lies to keep their belief. Science doesn’t care about your belief, it cares about the truth.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. “Thanks, Bob. ALL people commit logical fallacies. In science”. This also applies to secular scientists


    1. Yes, I already said that. Every person, no matter their age or occupation or intelligence or education, is subject to using logical fallacies.

      In science, other people check your work and tell you if you have used a logical fallacy. Then, you have to correct your work or abandon the hypothesis.

      In religion, nobody cares, they keep using fallacies. Religion IS logical fallacies. If you eliminate logical fallacies, you eliminate the religion.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Congrats, you admitted the fact that secular scientists also commits logical fallacies. Anything which is not absolute needs correction and change.


    1. By the way, what is non-secular science?

      Yes, scientists are subject to error. That is why other people check their work. Peer review IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF SCIENCE! That is how we weed out stupid ideas.

      In religion, peer review is completely non-existent. Stupid ideas live on for thousands of years.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Lol, you are too bad in google search. here you go


  12. Peer review is not absolutely necessary even Darwin’s origin of species was not peer reviewed.

    Again congrats, peer reviewers are also scientists who makes mistakes. Non secular science or religious science is an absolute science which doesn’t require peer review as it is perfect and complete. Any science which fails to explain origin’s of life with valid evidence is defective.

    Lol, you are too bad in google search here you gohttps://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/


    1. Darwins book was absolutely peer reviewed. There was almost zero acceptance when it was published, and many scientists jumped on to criticize it. But as they looked at the evidence, experimented, made predictions, and ultimately continued to get the same results, the theory became accepted. And Darwin continues to be peer reviewed to this day. Every scientist that deals with evolution is peer reviewing these ideas by using the theory to work on problems. If they failed, it would cast doubt on the theory. Yet hundreds of thousands of scientists over a century and a half have all so far found the theory sound.

      I’m not sure why you keep congratulating me. I told you up front that people make mistakes, including scientists. This is true everywhere. In writing, it is smart to have an editor or someone else check your work. Mechanics may have someone double check all the lug nuts are tight as a safety check. And yes, scientists peer review each other.

      Religion is the opposite of science. There is no testing. There is no specificity. There is no review. There is no verification. There is no attempt to find reality. There is only proclamation. “Religious science” results in people believing in witches, that disease is demons, that lightning is an angry god, the world is flat, fear of the dark, torture, and paranoia.

      We know science works and religion does not because of the results. Science gives us airplanes, smart phones, WiFi, solar panels, cars, longevity, low infant mortality, food on demand, and the internet.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. And all religion gives us is people who seem incapable of using the brain that their god gave them. *sigh*

        Liked by 2 people

  13. Spartan, I pity for your defective logic . I told that peer reviewer’s who are scientist’s also makes mistakes. Do you admit or not?. Religious science is an eternal science. We don’t keep such fallacious scientist’s as peer reviewers.

    The whole bunch of evolution shit is based on this fundamental fallacy of nothingness and randomness. Even Darwin admitted in his origin of species that life is so complex that he can’t find a transitional fossil to support his theory. Many recent fossil experts admitted about the gaps in fossil records. If the fossil record’s shows gaps why they are teaching this evolution shit in school’s. If you say that they are really open to correct then they shouldn’t have allowed in school libraries.

    Religious science is already researched and tested by many honest scientist’s like Sir Isaac Newton, Einstein and bio chemist Michael Behe. More and more the research done more and more evidences show about design in everything. It is only the secular scientist’s are afraid to accept the real scientific evidences. In order to earn money, name and fame they cover their defective research findings and lie to public that they have evidences.

    Religious science is a subtle science and it can only be studied and observed using subtle techniques and methods. The modern science has we say doesn’t have the advanced instruments, techniques and methods to understand about the subtle forces which is influencing our planet and our human’s. For example one cannot touch and see mind and one cannot see gravity force. One should have special intelligence to understand about subtle science. Therefore one cannot expect everyone to understand and apply such science. Just like everybody cannot understand medical science one who is intelligent only can understand medical subject matter and he is eligible to become a doctor.

    You said that, Science gives us airplanes, smart phones, WiFi, solar panels, cars, longevity, low
    infant mortality, food on demand, and the internet. This is one side of the science. Science also gives air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, deforestation. the natural water we drink has to be purified from contaminant’s caused by industries. We buy drinking water for money which is unnatural and artificial, automobiles has created global warming, ozone layer has been depleted, more and more commercial crops are grown instead of natural food crop’s, artificial fertilizers are thrown in the soil which makes soil loses it’s natural potency, more and more non communicable diseases like diabetes, cancer, blood pressure and heart problems etc are increasing. Kids getting exposed to bad habits through internet, violence, terrorism, teen age pregnancy and abortion of child even though mother has no risk factor. Famines, unnatural season changes as disrupted ecological balance. Money inflation, cost of living has increased. Exploiting mother nature for selfish gains. Life span has been reduced.


    1. Robert, I’m not going to go down a rabbit hole with you on evolution. If you actually care, get their side of the story from them. Read “Why Evolution is True” for example. Once you know what actual scientists say, then we can have the discussion.

      So “religious science” is an eternal science. But people have to write it and read it, right?


  14. That’s what Sir Isaac Newton and Einstein did. If you are intelligent enough to understand their elaborate mathematical calculation and scientific observation’s. I think you have the possibility to understand a spark of eternal science in their work’s.


    1. And let me guess, you are as smart as your god, so you can tell me about it, right?


  15. Newton’s work are like ocean water’s so one should have patience and intelligence to study and understand his great works.
    Here you go https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00016-014-0142-8


    1. Newton believed in alchemy. So, some of his ideas were really bad. Thats why we dont hear them anymore.

      Religious arguments, also very bad, from the same time period, are still recycled to this very day in religious studies.

      Talk about this subject or I won’t let you comment anymore.


  16. The quote at the beginning sounds like Lee Strobel in his “Case for Christ.” Either that, or C. S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity.” Thanks for researching the truth of the “scientist” story. The other book I am familiar with of similar tall tales is Norman Gieseler and Frank Turek’s “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.” Then there’s the many tall tales I grew up hearing, such as the smart student dazzling the atheist professor with his religion. Now that I know more about the world, and have spent much time in university classrooms as a student, I realize how unrealistic those stories are. But theists who have never been near a university swallow and repeat these stories whole.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. You were visited with a remarkable idea


Leave a Reply

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close