Having participated at UD for 8 years now, criticizing Darwinism and OOL over and over again for 8 years is like beating a dead horse for 8 years. We only dream up more clever and effective and creative ways to beat the dead horse of Darwinism, but it’s still beating a dead horse. It’s amazing we still have a readership that enjoys seeing the debates play out given we know which side will win the debates about Darwin… Given this fact, I’ve turned to some other questions that have been of interest to me and readers. One question that remains outstanding (and may not ever have an answer) is how much information is in an artifact. This may not be Read More ›

My post intends to be a response to a previous UD article by scordova. Scordova, who asks “should ID include AI as a form of intelligence?” and answers “I think so”, is aware to have put on the table a critical topic because himself writes: I know many of my ID colleagues will disagree or will remain skeptical of adopting such a convention. I am one of his ID colleagues who disagrees and I will explain why. Scordova wrote: So what is the evidence of intelligence? I would suggest the ability to construct artifacts or events with Specified Improbability (the usual term is Specified Complexity, CSI, etc. but those terms are too confusing). This is an extremely reductive way to Read More ›