It’s been a while though. What would replace Einstein’s theories? The war on math?
Brian Miller: Biologists wedded to scientific materialism have argued that life is so different from human artifacts that they can dismiss engineers’ conclusions about organisms’ limited evolvability. The central fallacy in this argument is that nearly every difference between human creations and life makes the latter ever more challenging to design. And the challenges translate into more daunting obstacles for any evolutionary scenario.
Chivers, science editor at Unherd: “It’s mainly a book designed to tell readers that people they already think are dumb are, in fact, dumb. It is, really, How to Talk to A Contemptible Idiot Who Is Kind of Evil. ” That won’t be much use with serious problems science can help with.
After all, he argues, random processes are used all the time to model things in science: When we test a sequence of numbers for randomness, we are essentially testing how easy it is to predict the sequence of numbers. One of the simplest tests is to measure how frequently heads and tails occur during a Read More…
Some of us remember when Darwinian commenters chided us for writing about the war on math and the war on science. Now that Jerry Coyne is starting to talk about it, will they start to listen?
Epstein’s theory is that that the brain is a type of transducer, that is, a device or an organ that converts one signal to another signal, commonly from one medium to another. A microphone, for example, is a transducer that converts sound waves to electrical current. Your eye is a transducer that converts light to vision. So the brain converts thoughts to material effects.
They had hoped for a world that was ultimately denied them.
“Ferguson is careful to emphasize that he is not trying to disprove the reality of religious experience:” Oh no. For sure, why would anyone think that? 😉 Egnor: The best way to understand religious experience is to have one. Researchers who are looking for a way around that problem don’t produce useful research.
Throwing a horseshoe into the works of Darwinism, many life forms simply reduce their complexity in order to survive. Yes, natural selection works and is real but — because it depends on randomness — it doesn’t produce reliably complexity all by itself any more than winning a lottery ticket reliably produces wealth.
From podcast introduction: An erudite and settled Darwinist living comfortably in a thoroughly secular English academic culture, Thomas nevertheless came to reject Darwinian materialism and, as he insists, did so on purely rationalist grounds.
Veristasium probably MUST front some Darwin nonsense to stay in good with the main people in charge of pointing others to their site. Focus on the real stuff, like the remarkably complex cell machinery and ask: Randomness?
Michael Egnor: I’ve gotten calls to my department in my university demanding that I be fired. That’s a fairly frequent thing. I was called a couple of years ago by the campus police that there was a death threat against me and they wanted to protect me. So this kind of stuff goes on. And some of these people are vicious.
At ScienceDaily: “”Basically, in anything except living fossils, you don’t go 22 million years without evolving,” said [Louis] Jacobs, professor emeritus of Earth Sciences at SMU and president of ISEM at SMU.” (Well, first, if that’s true, maybe they were the “living fossils” of their day. Maybe it is not even that unusual. Any chance there is a pattern here that devotion to Darwinism prevents people from seeing?)
At Nature: “Study finds that the noxious pests have become so numerous, they’ve developed a taste for each other — as well as defences to ward off such attacks”: The discovery could help researchers to understand the evolutionary underpinnings of how this uncommon and extreme behaviour emerges. Scientists have seen cannibalism evolve in species before, Read More…
Neil Thomas: Through the lens of a celestial telescope, it is true, one can see little but the unfeeling immensity of that unremittingly hostile universe invoked by [Bertrand] Russell, but if we look around us here on Earth we can see a planet which seems entirely discontinuous with the rest of the observable cosmos and abounding in a host of benign phenomena so numerous that they tend to go largely unnoticed.