Month: April 2009

This from the SPECTATOR. Melanie Phillips is also quite the favorite at RichardDawkins.net. ——————————————————————————————— Creating an Insult to Intelligence By Melanie Phillips Wednesday, 29th April 2009 www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips…insult-to-intelligence Listening to the Today programme this morning, I was irritated once again by yet another misrepresentation of Intelligent Design as a form of Creationism. In an item on Read More…

I received this email from a colleague in London who used to have an office in the place where the Shard London Bridge (a massive skyscraper) is being built. His insight about design detection requiring a trained eye is good. His insight about Darwinists having purposely (by design?) trained their eyes not to see design Read More…

Here is, I am told, a new ID blog in Portuguese . Paulo writes: I have been reading some Intelligent Design blogs, like Uncommon Descent, Telic Thoughts, etc, for a long time. I thought that portuguese speakers should have access to opinions and information about alternatives views to Darwinism too. So, in 2007, I created Read More…

Over at Strange Herring, Anthony Sacramone gives us an hilarious send up of the latest evolutionary idiocy: I knew it! Researchers, looking into obesity, discovered that fatty foods not only send feelings of fullness to the brain but they also trigger a process that consolidates long term memories. It believed that this is an evolutionary Read More…

In Clever Critters: 8 Best Non-Human Tool Users, by Brandon Keim (Wired Science, January 16, 2009), we are introduced to best known examples of animal tool use. The article begins with the requisite Darwin worship, of course: Much more likely remains to be found: until Jane Goodall watched chimpanzees fishing for termites with sticks, scientists Read More…

I had meant to post this sooner, but had too much on my plate: YouTube Source

In a very thoughtful essay that deserves its own post, vjtorley writes: As someone with a background in philosophy, I’d like to make a few brief comments on the issues raised [in the Materialist Poofery” post]: Regarding reduction, emergence and supervenience: these philosophical terms have multiple definitions in the literature. One place where I might Read More…

A magazine I recommend to the kind readers of Uncommon Descent is Salvo. Yes, I write for it, and here are some of my recent contributions that are available on line. Livin’ on a Prayer The “nothing but” approach to describing humans The Truth Hurts:Following the Evidence to Career Oblivion But many skilled writers serve Read More…

Trillions are much in the news lately regarding the economy. Such large numbers also come up in the small probability arguments inherent in design inferences (small probabilities are reciprocals of large numbers). As a public service, I’m herewith presenting some visuals for dealing with large numbers: ——————————————————— ——————————————————— ——————————————————— ——————————————————— ——————————————————— ——————————————————— ——————————————————— ———————————————————

Last evening I posted the following, and within a short period of time the Darwinbots descended upon it, challenging my expertise in two highly sophisticated areas of computational science, AI and FEA, fields in which I have the goods to demonstrate that I know what I am talking about. One commenter even asserted that the Read More…

From time to time we see materialists raising the “poof objection” against ID. The poof objection goes something like this: An ID theorist claims that a given organic system (the bacterial flagellum perhaps) is irreducibly complex or that it displays functional complex specified information. In a sneering and condescending tone the materialist dismisses the claim, Read More…

4. ID does not make scientifically fruitful predictions. This claim is simply false. To cite just one example, the non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions. In contrast, on teleological grounds, Michael Denton Read More…