2014

The next time you hear some maroon* tell you that science is an objective, neutral, self-correcting project whose only purpose is to conduct a dispassionate search for truth, show them this chart. 95% of the models are wrong. It would be one thing if 50% came out predicting warmer than actual and 50% came out predicting cooler than actual. But what does it say when over 95% of the models are BOTH  wrong and wrong in predicting warmer than actual?  That was a rhetorical question. Usual liberal response to facts like this: ” Shut up you officious climate denier! And give me your money.” Say what you want about “science.”  The fact remains that science is conducted by scientists, and scientists are Read More ›

This morning I looked up into the sky and saw several hundred geese flying in a formation that appeared to be a single undulating mass. It reminded me of the schools of silver fish I have seen while diving in the Caribbean that also seem to move as a single mass (those who have seen Finding Nemo know what I am talking about). These bird and fish behaviors along with hurricanes are often used by materialists to demonstrate the idea of “emergence.” When the “whole” of a given phenomenon appears to have properties that are more complex than its constituents, the whole is said to be an “emergent property” of the constituents. With that in mind, here is a question: Read More ›

WJM reminds us of a couple of famous design theorists: Darwin and Dawkins. All that follows is WJM. For that matter, even Charles Darwin argued that the existence of a single IC system (though he didn’t use that word) would falsify his evolutionary hypothesis: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (I thank Peter S. Williams for researching some of the following points.) . . . Richard Dawkins . . . wrote about “Mount Improbable,” [and] acknowledges that CSI is a good indicator for design? He writes: Of all the unique and, with hindsight equally improbable, positions of the combination Read More ›

New Contributor HeKS, has had occasion to comment a few hours ago on KS’ claimed bomb argument (cf. my own headlined for record response here, WJM’s here and here,  VJT’s here,   BA’s Black Knight Taunt summing up here and other responses at UD . . . KS’s  repeated boasts that he has not been answered are groundless).  I think his comment is worth headlining as a pivot for discussion on the issue and on what has been happening rhetorically: ______________ HeKS: >> In this thread, I noticed Keiths posting a summary of his supposed ‘bomb’ argument. I haven’t been around much lately and haven’t seen too much of the discussion around his argument that has apparently been taking place, but Read More ›

Thank you to all who have participated in the CSI debate over the last few days, especially Winston, vjtorley, keiths, KF, HeKS. It has been an illuminating discussion. Thanks especially to vjt for his effort to synthesize the various positions. I have a real job and I have already spent far too much time away from it on this subject, but I wanted to address one final topic before heading back to work. Some of our opponents have criticized my “challenge” as being impossible to meet “by definition.” They say that CSI is “defined” as that which is beyond the reach of chance/law processes, and therefore it is literally meaningless to set up a challenge that calls for a demonstration Read More ›

Amid the fog of recent controversies, I can discern a hopeful sign: the key figures in the ongoing debate over specified complexity on Uncommon Descent are actually converging in their opinions. Allow me to explain why. Winston Ewert’s helpful clarifications on CSI In a recent post, ID proponent Winston Ewert agreed that Elizabeth Liddle had a valid point in her criticisms of the design inference, but then went on to say that she had misunderstood what the design inference was intended to do (emphases mine): She has objected that specified complexity and the design inference do not give a method for calculating probabilities. She is correct, but the design inference was never intended to do that. It is not about Read More ›

(it’s designed to) These are some thoughts prompted by the recent article Arrival of the Fittest: Robustness and flexibility are basic design principles. We design modules so that they are robust against minor damage, bad inputs and changes in other parts of the code. This aids ‘evolvability’ of the whole by untangling the knots so that parts of the design can be worked on independently. Think of Dawkins’ METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL parable. The string of text can evolve because each letter is selected independently. The system is designed to evolve. By contrast, in an undesigned bag of chemicals or genes you would have all kinds of cross interaction which means a change in one chemical could have wide-ranging unpredictable effects. The chemical/genetic Read More ›