March 2014

First of all I want to thank the Uncommon Descent moderators for allowing me to post, with a particular hat tip to StephenB.  As I indicated on a prior thread, I am not sure how often I will take the time to create a new thread, but hopefully I can occasionally post something of interest.  Kudos to gpuccio for a wonderful first thread, relating to the basic definition of “design”.

—-

Intelligent Design Basics – Information

In this post I want to consider a fundamental aspect of intelligent design theory: the concept of “information”. Read More ›

Thanks to UD, I was able to make improvements to version 1 of an essay I published at UD here. I cleaned up the essay thanks to the comments and criticisms and published version 2 at CEU Insight and Inspiration. Thank you to all those who helped me make a better essay, and it became the featured topic of discussion on Episode #578 of the Revolution Against Evolution Godtube Channel and it made RAE.org list of featured essays.

As known, complex numbers are numbers of the form: z = x + i y where x is the real part, y is the imaginary part and “i” is the square root of -1. Complex numbers have many applications in science, where it is necessary, in the same time, to collect together and discriminate two heterogeneous entities. Here, as brainstorming, I propose to consider complex numbers when we deal with the complexity/organization of systems. We could define the measure of the “complexity c(S) of a system S” as a complex number z: c(S) = z = x + i y = quantity + i quality = matter + i information where x is a measure of its quantitative aspects (mass, Read More ›

I think that sometimes, it helps to pull back a bit and reflect on the meta . . . philosophical . . . issues connected to design, mind, being, cause and effect, what it would mean to be a necessary being, etc. I have also been thinking in that context, that the modern, modal ontological argument championed by Plantinga (and with some roots in Godel etc) is a good place to begin from, and so, I have blogged on that here, beginning: __________ >> Perhaps the most controversial of the major arguments pointing to God is the ontological argument. Many think it is little more than verbal trickery, and are highly dismissive. Others are fond of parodying and dismissing it. But, Read More ›

Professor Larry Moran thinks macroevolution isn’t terribly hard to understand, if you take the time to do some reading on the subject. He also thinks that Professor James Tour, the world-famous organic chemist who has declared that he doesn’t understand macroevolution, is lazy and opinionated. Professor Moran singled out Professor Tour for attack in a recent post titled, A chemist who doesn’t understand evolution. (Before I continue, I’d like to thank Professor Moran for linking to my article, A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution, in his post.) Here’s a relevant excerpt from Moran’s post: Normally you’d have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim that all other experts are Read More ›

David Heddle, a professor of physics asks the question: Why is P.Z. so dumb? Because he can’t grasp that fine-tuning is a metaphor. He is a afraid that it gives to much ammunition to the theists. This had to be one of the most entertaining take downs of Victor Stenger and PZ Myers by a fellow scientist. David Heddle points out the very people labeling climate change dissidents as science deniers are themselves science deniers of fine-tuning. They are fine-tuning deniers. Let me give my definition of fine-tuning. Fine-tuning: It is the observation that the ability of the universe to synthesize heavy elements (heavy = anything beyond Helium, or “metals” to Astronomers), which are necessary for any kind of life, Read More ›