He offers some here: When I teach a course, I too like to sell the sizzle at the beginning of each lecture. For a graduate course in information theory I teach, the students are told that they will learn why their cell phones use recently discovered coding that pushes the boundaries of what is mathematically possible in communication speed. I also tell them that we will prove that some things exist that we can also prove are unknowable. And there are numbers that a computer can’t compute. There also exists a single number, Chaitin’s number, that we know lies between zero and one. If we knew Chaitin’s number to finite precision, we could prove or disprove numerous open problems in Read More ›

LC also has some food for thought for Friday fun: LC, 18: >>From the OP “Today’s dominant school of thought can become tomorrow’s dead theory, often one funeral at a time.” This is true. Every time they find another fossil they have to re-organize their phylogenetic trees. Some trees have been changed so many times it’s almost like watching a game of three card monte, trying to figure out where the Lady is going to be located this time around. “Next, we must recognize that without people, there is no science.” I would add that without people there is also no scientism. We can attempt to rationalize why creeping scientism is on the creep but this is a waste of Read More ›

This is the first of two food for thought pieces coming from comments in the scientism thread: Harry, 7: >>Materialistic Scientism Is Fundamentally Irrational In order to demonstrate how a given instance of functional complexity might come about mindlessly and accidentally, one must first know how to create it intentionally. Then, one can at least begin to explain how the required steps in the functional-complexity-assembling procedure might, over enough time, happen mindlessly, accidentally, and in the necessary sequence, through some combination of chance and the laws of physics. So, until science knows how to create life – an instance of massive functional complexity – from scratch, they are in no position to insist that it came about mindlessly and accidentally Read More ›

Michael Behe, author of Darwin Devolves, responds to claims that he has misunderstood the polar bear: This is the first in a series of posts responding to the extended critique of Darwin Devolves by Richard Lenski at his blog, Telliamed Revisited. Professor Lenski is perhaps the most qualified scientist in the world to analyze the arguments of the book… The question Behe is addressing is whether a genetic adaptation in polar bears that enables them to live on a high-fat diet is actually a convenient loss rather than a gain. In much the same way, a broken side window might help you get into a house if you forget the key code. In extremely cold weather, that may save your Read More ›

A physicst calls it quantum monism but he more or less means the multiverse. The problem, as he sees it, is that “the laws of physics appear to be finely tuned to permit the existence of intelligent beings who can discover those laws—a coincidence that demands explanation”. However, if we accept that there are zillions of universes out there, science loses its power to predict anything: “There is no obvious guiding principle for the CERN physicists searching for new particles. And there is no fundamental law to be discovered behind the accidental properties of the universe.” His proposal? This is where “quantum monism,” as championed by Rutgers University philosopher Jonathan Schaffer, enters the stage. Schaffer has mused over the question Read More ›

“Evolution provides a theological solution to a theological problem, and the science is sandwiched somewhere in between. But the theological premises are denied so the theological result is seen as coming from science, and science inappropriately attains the status of truth giver.” I made that observation in Darwin’s God, and unfortunately it remains just as true today. The latest example of this phenomenon comes in the brand new volume, Calvinism and Middle Knowledge where, in Chapter 2, Kirk MacGregor strongly argues that evolution proves Molinism. Molinism was one of the dozen or more religious motivations and mandates for evolutionary thought, and now in the twenty-first century, evolution is used as a proof text for Molinism. See the sequence? Religion drives the science, and Read More ›

Details are unclear but U.S. President Trump has threatened to cut off federal research funds to colleges and universities that deny free speech: In an interview after Trump’s speech, Terry Hartle, senior vice president for the American Council on Education, called the executive order “a solution in search of a problem,” because “free speech and academic freedom are core values of research universities.” Oh. Well then they shouldn’t have any problem with the President’s position at all, should they? Some experts believe the President may succeed in using an executive order to restrict research funds. “There’s a history of the federal government requiring universities to do certain kinds of things in order to receive federal research funding,” Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a Read More ›

You think you’re free to read what you want? Think again: Three days ago on this forum, I raised the question how long would it be before Amazon, which has now started banning videos skeptical of vaccines, starts banning books. I thought books would be safer. But no. Tommy Robinson’s book Mohammed’s Koran has now been banned on Amazon. For the story, see here. For the Tommy Robinson page at Amazon showing that the book has indeed been removed (proof by absence), see here. Barnes and Noble has likewise removed it. … Bill Dembski, “Censorship of Books at Amazon” at billdembski.com The Big Shuddup was bound to happen in monopoly markets. It is much easier to stop a single leak than hundreds of them. Read More ›