I like to reduce stuff to the essentials. I thus propose that the essentials of Darwinian orthodoxy are the following: Shine light on dirt and it can turn into complex information-processing technology, given enough time. Next, introduce random errors into the dirt-to-complex-information-processing technology, and, given enough time, such errors can ultimately turn dirt into Darwin. Really folks, this is the claim of materialist Darwinists, reduced to its fundamental hypothetical claims. It is a quintessential example of naked-emperor syndrome. When presented honestly, as I have done, no reasonable person would accept such transparent nonsense. Yet, many people do. I know why. The alternative of design and purpose would destroy their entire materialistic worldview, which is unacceptable. Reason and evidence are of Read More ›

A common objection to the theory of intelligent design (ID) is that it has no power to make testable predictions, and thus there is no basis for calling it science at all. While recognising that testability may not be a sufficient or necessary resolution of the “Demarcation Problem”, this article will consider one prediction made by ID and discuss how this prediction has been confirmed. Click here to continue reading>>>

One criticism of ID that tends to come from those who might normally share our worldview (such as Thomists) is that ID attempts to measure meaning, while meaning is unquantifiable. I argue that this is partially correct – we currently don’t know how to quantify meaning or meaningfulness. Unlike others, I am not about to give up the search for a way to do this, but nonetheless I do agree that at present it is unquantifiable. However, ID doesn’t measure meaning. Instead, ID measures an indirect indicator of meaning – CSI, active information, etc. Indirect measurements are nothing new in science. In fact, thermometers are a great example of an indirect measurement. We can’t measure temperature directly. So, instead, we Read More ›

If you look at university physics texts which discuss the second law, you will find examples of “entropy” increases cited such as books burning, wine glasses breaking, bombs exploding, rabbits dying, automobiles crashing, buildings being demolished, and tornadoes tearing through a town (I have actually seen each of these cited). According to Sal, all of these “creationist” text writers are confused, because in most or all of these cases, “entropy” is actually decreasing. When an albatross dies, or a tornado destroys a 747, entropy is actually decreasing, he says. Of course, Sal is talking about “thermal” entropy, since the only formulation of the second law he recognizes as valid is the early Clausius formulation, which deals with thermal entropy alone. Read More ›

Readers will likely recall the ENCODE project, published in a series of papers in 2007, in which (among other interesting findings) it was discovered that, even though the vast majority of our DNA does not code for proteins, the human genome is nonetheless pervasively transcribed into mRNA. The science media and blogosphere is now abuzz with the latest published research from the ENCODE project, the most recent blow to the “junk DNA” paradigm. Since the majority of the genome being non-functional (as has been claimed by many, including notably Larry Moran, P.Z. Myers, Nick Matzke, Jerry Coyne, Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins) would be surprising given the hypothesis of design, ID proponents have long predicted that function will be identified Read More ›

In order for a biological system to have more biological complexity, it often requires a substantial increase in thermodynamic entropy, not a reduction of it, contrary to many intuitions among creationists and IDists. This essay is part II of a series that began with Part 1 The physicist Fred Hoyle famously said: The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. I agree with that assertion, but that conclusion can’t be formally derived from the 2nd law of thermodynamics (at least those forms of the 2nd law that are stated in many physics and engineering text Read More ›

Sal C has begun a series of UD posts on entropy, thermodynamics and info challenges. I have thought it important to highlight the macro-micro info gap issues underscored by Jaynes et al, and to raise the issue of spontaneously moving from Darwin’s Pond-state to cell-state (whether in increments or not does not materially affect the point) without intelligently directed organising work. This sets the context for the design inference on OOL, in light of the significance of our broad base of experience on the source of FSCO/I: Materials + Energy sources + IDOW –> FSCO/I Where FSCO/I is evident from functional specificity and complexity of organised entities. Such may also directly store information in physical data structures such as control Read More ›

The common belief is that adding disorder to a designed object will destroy the design (like a tornado passing through a city, to paraphrase Hoyle). Now if increasing entropy implies increasing disorder, creationists will often reason that “increasing entropy of an object will tend to destroy its design”. This essay will argue mathematically that this popular notion among creationists is wrong. The correct conception of these matters is far more nuanced and almost the opposite of (but not quite) what many creationists and IDists believe. Here is the more correct view of entropy’s relation to design (be it man-made or otherwise): 1. increasing entropy can increase the capacity for disorder, but it doesn’t necessitate disorder 2. increasing an object’s capacity Read More ›

A couple of months ago, I agreed to take part in a written debate with a good friend of mine, Francis Smallwood. Francis, like me, is a commited Christian. Unlike me though, he is also a neo-Darwinist. On his blog Musings Of A Scientific Nature he writes on many different scientific issues, although his primary focus is on Darwinism. I encourage UD readers to check his blog out. As an enthusiastic ID proponent, I obviously think his embrace of Darwinian theory is profoundly mistaken, and equally I think his criticisms of ID are weak. However, he is at least willing to engage in debate with people of opposing view points and is not as dismissive as most Darwinists. Our idea Read More ›

“The Lord God is subtle, but he is not malicious.” Einstein “I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.” Einstein Can the Intelligent Designer of life create malicious designs? If the flagellum and other parts of bacteria are intelligently designed, it would raise the question whether microbially-based diseases and plagues are intelligently designed. It seems the best inference from the evidence is that even malicious designs are also intelligently designed. How can we resolve the problem of malicious design with intelligent design? There are a number of ways some have come to terms with this. The following list is not exhaustive by any means, just slapped together: 0. there is no intelligent design, so it’s not a problem 1. the Read More ›

This is a great video on the interplay between the ideas of Gödel and Turing on what Gödel’s incompleteness means for the mind. This is of great importance to ID, because it indicates what it means for “design” as opposed to “mechanism”, and the limitations of any mechanistic/physicalist model of reality and humanity. Kurt Gödel: Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition Someone pointed me to this video a while ago, but I don’t remember who – thanks to whoever it was – it was certainly worthwhile! Also, does anyone know what video this is taken from? For those interested in more modern advances on the subject, you might check out these talks on the subject from the recent Engineering and Metaphysics Read More ›