One of the favourite tactics of hyperskepticism is to brazenly dismiss what is objected to as a myth, misconcept or word magic, etc; even while in the real world, one must deal with it day by day as blatant reality. Oops. This has been happening with FSCO/I and linked concepts such as dFSCI. As a simple example of the undeniable reality of functionally specific complex organisation that depends on proper arrangement of parts according to a wiring diagram (which is informational) to achieve function, I again bring to the table a classic, the Abu-Garcia 6500 C3 mag reel, with its exploded view “wiring” diagram: The need for proper functionally specific information rich organisation of correct parts to get it to Read More ›

In my previous post, Six bombshells relating to H. L. Mencken and the Scopes Trial, I exposed six journalist bombshells relating to the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. I also accused Mencken of lying on nine particular points – a charge for which I shall provide substantiation in today’s post. Mencken’s Nine Major Misrepresentations – An Executive Summary What did Mencken lie about, in his reporting on the Scopes trial? First, Mencken lied about the key point at issue in the Scopes Trial, which was not whether the theory of evolution could be taught in Tennessee’s public high schools, but whether the evolution of man from “lower animals” could be taught as a scientific theory to high school Read More ›

The most common explanation for the formation of planet Earth is that it formed by gravitational collapse from a cloud of particles (gas, ice, dust) swirling around the Sun.  Specifically, the idea is that small planetesimals form as the various particles clump together (perhaps initially by cohesion, then by gravity), eventually growing into planets.  Known as the “accretion hypothesis,” this is the standard model of planet formation, not just for Earth, but for nearly all planets.* Significant debate continues regarding the formation of the Moon, but the most widely-held hypothesis is that the Moon formed in a similar way via accretion of impact material produced by a violent collision between a Mars-sized object and the Earth. For purposes of the Read More ›

In this post I will be continuing my discussion of “meaning.”  In its entry on “meaning” Wikipedia lists the “big questions.”  Theists will necessarily answer these questions differently from materialists.  Below is my best estimate of how the questions will be answered by the two groups. Theist’s Answers Followers of different theistic traditions will answer the questions differently.  The following is from a traditional Christian perspective. 1.  What is the meaning of life?  In the Christian tradition this question is perhaps best answered by the Westminster Shorter Catechism:  Q1. What is the chief end of man? A1. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. 2.  What’s it all about?  See 1. 3.  Who are we?  Read More ›

In a recent post, I was challenged to offer examples of computation of dFSCI for a list of 4 objects for which I had inferred design. One of the objects was a Shakespeare sonnet. My answer was the following: A Shakespeare sonnet. Alan’s comments about that are out of order. I don’t infer design because I know of Shakespeare, or because I am fascinated by the poetry (although I am). I infer design simply because this is a piece of language with perfect meaning in english (OK, ancient english). Now, a Shakespeare sonnet is about 600 characters long. That corresponds to a search space of about 3000 bits. Now, I cannot really compute the target space for language, but I Read More ›