2014

Sorry TJ, then you will never be in good standing in the Darwinian cool kids club. All that follows is from tjguy’s comment to my prior post: Tin says: Just because something can be made by man does not mean that all occurrences in nature must have an intelligent origin. As Barry says, sure, that is a good point. But likewise, it doesn’t mean that it does NOT have an intelligent origin in nature either. And another huge difference between making diamonds and making DNA code is that we basically understand how diamonds are made. There is little dispute about this. The natural processes are fairly well understood and in fact, have been tested. And we actually copy the natural Read More ›

tintinnid attempts to undermine the design inference by noting: Just because something can be made by man does not mean that all occurrences in nature must have an intelligent origin. Agreed. You have been one of our most vocal critics in recent weeks. But that you would write this statement indicates you have a seriously flawed understanding of the ID project. I recommend that before you spend further hours on this website criticizing ID, that perhaps you might try to understand it first. Then, when you go to criticize it, you will be actually criticizing ID, and not some distorted caricature of ID you’ve made up. You see, Tin, it does no good to criticize a distorted caricature of ID. Read More ›

One of the saddest aspects of the debates over the design inference on empirically reliable signs such as FSCO/I, is the way evolutionary materialist objectors and fellow travellers routinely insist on distorting the ID view, even after many corrections. (Kindly, note the weak argument correctives, accessible under the UD Resources Tab, which address many of these.) Indeed, the introduction to the just liked WACs is forced to remark: . . . many critics mistakenly insist that ID, in spite of its well-defined purpose, its supporting evidence, and its mathematically precise paradigms, is not really a valid scientific theory. All too often, they make this charge on the basis of the scientists’ perceived motives. We have noticed that some of these Read More ›

KF says they do: Just from the suspiciously uniform but non-repetitive asymmetric pattern of surfaces and features in the sand castle — too many straight lines and arcs of circles or circles, rectangles, cuboids and the like — I would be suspicious. BTW, in lure fishing, too much uniformity is to be avoided, the fish get suspicious: straight lines, overly steady speeds and overly regular noises. Hence the famous Darter used in surf fishing, which is designed to erratically dart especially in a zone with currents and waves . . . BTW, a real bugbear to design and build. IOWs, to use your abbreviation, even smart fish make a design inference on known design patterns and don’t bite!

In response to this post rich says: It’s a bit like looking at a clock for a tenth of a second and lamenting you’ve witnessed no hours. Did you expect to? To which WJM responds: what I’m lamenting is not that we do not see hours pass on the clock, but rather, I’m lamenting the faith-based, infinite credulity and certitude expressed by those that have looked at “the clock” for a 10th of a second (as you say) and have extrapolated that into virtual certainty that “the clock”, over time, came into being by chance and natural forces and through those processes developed all the different kinds of functional, accurate time pieces found on Earth. Even when there is no Read More ›

Are ID advocates guilty of selective hyperskepticism? Professor Larry Moran evidently thinks we are. In a recent post, he writes: Let’s take the formation of bacterial flagella as a good illustration of how they use selective hyperskepticism. They begin with the unshakeable assumption that gods exist, that that they must have created life. They then find an example of something complex where the exact evolutionary pathway hasn’t been worked out and declare that the gods made it. They refuse to answer any questions about how, when, where, and why and they refuse to present any evidence that gods did it. When evolutionary biologists present some evidence that bacterial flagella could have arisen by evolution the creationists turn into selective hyperskepticists Read More ›

From our own WJM: What is so frustrating/baffling at times is the ongoing use of terminology by materialists to deny/obfuscate what are relatively simple, straightforward observations – as if the example of the sun seemingly moving through the sky serves as a universal principle of hyperskeptical fallibility through which every statement/observation can be summarily ignored/dismissed. If one cannot admit there is a significant difference between a sandcastle and a sandpile that is not merely “incidental”, what hope is there for meaningful debate about anything? It’s useful to recognize that such hyperskepticism is only applied one way – it is never applied to their own materialist or atheist ideology, its assumptions, “truths”, faith, or line of logic. Apparently, logic is perfectly Read More ›