Barry Arrington

In my prior post UD News commented regarding someone who has denied that the difference between a random string of text and a string of text that consists of English sentences is that the latter conforms to a specification, i.e., the conventions of the English language. She said: It is hard to believe anyone doesn’t know this. My initial impulse was to write that I would modify her observation to: “It is impossible to believe anyone doesn’t know this; it is hard to believe anyone would not admit they know what they must know.” Upon reflection, however, I decided it is not really hard to believe after all. I remember very vividly when my friends told me Santa Claus was Read More ›

Over the last ten years in these pages we have seen versions of the following basic progression hundreds of times: 1.  Materialist makes false claim about ID. 2.  ID proponent explodes false claim and asks materialist to acknowledge his error. 3.  Materialist never gives an inch, bobs and weaves, and tries to change the subject. In this post E.Seigner gives us such a pristine example that I decided to use it as a paradigmatic illustration of the progression. At 265 E.Seigner trots out a version of the hoary old “ID proponents just think complex things must be designed” error. He writes: The further problem is that the contrast is not solid, but it’s a point on a continuum, where the point is Read More ›

Satellite instruments began uniformly measuring temperatures throughout the Earth’s lower atmosphere in 1979.  Climate scientists overseeing these NASA satellite instruments produced the chart below showing the following temperature trends: *  a plateau of temperatures, with absolutely no warming, from 1979 through 1997 *  a large temperature spike in 1998 *  a return to the 1979-1997 mean in 1999-2000 *  a modest escalation of temperatures in 2001 *  an elevated plateau of essentially flat temperatures from 2002-2014**   Here is the chart: One thing had been established beyond the slightest doubt.  The global warming alarmists’ computer models have been exploded.  They were wrong wrong wrong.  There is no other word for it. Now, those same alarmists say, “pay no attention to Read More ›

Lately the materialists have been whining more than usual about UD’s moderation policy.  They are saying that anyone who disagrees with the UD position gets banned.  Fortunately for us, that accusation is demonstrably untrue.  No one gets banned from UD unless they repeatedly violate the moderation policy.  Civil disagreement is not only allowed; it is encouraged. Anyone who wants to disagree with us can do so as long as they like, and so long as they avoid trollish behavior, they will never be banned. Mark Frank is a good example.  Mark is one of our most vociferous critics.  He posted his first comment nearly nine years ago on February 21, 2006, and he has been politely hammering away at us Read More ›

From my friend Shawn Mitchell: There may never have been a less scientific campaign than the public face of Global Warming Alarmism. As the warming pause approaches two decades; the models and their predictions stand in shatters without rationale, and predicted disasters regularly are falsified (much to the polar bears’ joy) you would think an authoritarian movement to seize control of our energy, consumption, and economy would be moved to “pause” and reflect on the merits and uncertainties of its case. You would be wrong. The wronger they look, the shriller they get, the more absolute their demands, the more sure and vituperative their response to skepticism. They are a religion impervious to empiricism or doubt. Has anyone noticed any Read More ›

In my Not Merely False post I made the following statement. It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts . . . on the basis of physical facts. For anyone who has read Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos, this phraseology should be familiar, because the idea for the post came from that book. Yes, I am basing an assertion on the writings of a materialist author (albeit one who is uncommonly honest about the shortcomings of materialism). In response Graham2 wrote: If you people insist on such vague, slippery terms such as a ‘mental fact’ then these discussions are pretty pointless. What on earth is a ‘mental fact’ ? By “you people” I suppose Graham2 is Read More ›

“We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men” (George Orwell). The following statements are so obvious as to be considered truisms. 1. The primordial datum: I am subjectively self-aware. 2. It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts, such as the primordial datum, on the basis of physical facts. They are different sorts of things; therefore one cannot account for the other. Trying to account for subjective self-awareness by suggesting it is an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical process of the brain is like saying the color blue can be reduced to its constituent banana peels. 3. It follows that a reductionist materialism is Read More ›

In this post I asked how a materialist could apply for a position as a professional ethicist. I asked: “Why should I pay someone $68,584 to say there is no real ultimate ethical difference between one moral response and another because they must both lead ultimately to the same place – nothingness.” My point is illustrated by this quotation from professional materialist ethicist Peter Singer: Whatever the future holds, it is likely to prove impossible to restore in full the sanctity-of-life view. The philosophical foundations of this view have been knocked asunder. We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation made in the image of God, singled out from Read More ›

In a comment to my prior post “AnimatedDust” writes: Fascinating discussion. I have spent hours reading it. However, it seems to me that A_B [i.e., “Acartia_bogartis’ is] assuming the position of a superior tennis player who stands at the center of the baseline and by his superior play is causing all of the UD heavy hitters to have to run all over the court. Of all the substantive arguments that you make, he disregards them at his pleasure and hits the ball to yet another corner, and you willingly respond and dutifully hit it back. You seem oblivious to the fact that he cares nothing about your substantive answers and is merely here for his own facile amusement.  His targets Read More ›

There is such a thing as a professional “ethicist,” and as of this writing the median annual income of a clinical ethicist is $68,584. Here is one job description for such a position: Offers guidance to patients, their families, and professional staff on ethical, legal and policy issues and concerns stemming from clinical interactions between health care professionals and patients. Provides guidance to the institutional ethics committee pertaining to policy formulation and educational and case review activities. Develops institutional policies concerning ethical issues such as “do-not-resuscitate” and “withdrawal of life-support”. Requires a master’s degree or doctorate related to health ethics and at least 5 years of experience in the field. I can understand how a theist who believes in the Read More ›

I am finally getting around to an in-depth read of Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos, and I am gratified to learn that an honest materialist agrees with my assessment of “emergentism.”  It is a confession of ignorance disguised as an explanation.  In Materialist Poofery I wrote: the materialist . . . must come up with a theory that reduces the mind to an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical processes of the brain.  What do they do?  They say the mind is an ‘emergent property’ of the brain.  Huh?  Wazzat?  That means that the brain system has properties that cannot be reduced to its individual components.  The system is said to ‘supervene’ (I’m not making this up) on its components causing the Read More ›

Humans and chimpanzees are genetically similar. Some estimate the similarity at 98%. Others slightly less. A lot of ink has been spilt regarding this issue. See here, here, here, here, and here for just a few examples of the thousands of articles that have been written on the subject. What is all the fuss about?  It seems to me that much of the fuss is accounted for by the fact that whether they are in the ID or the creationist camp, many theists have an adverse visceral reaction to the data, and for that reason they work very hard to discredit or downplay it. I once felt this way. But as John Adams famously said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever Read More ›

In the combox to the do we need context post a materialist who goes by RDFish states this regarding a non-repeating series of prime numbers (comment 48): The only known source of such a series is a human source. Fish then emphatically declares that absolutely nothing can be inferred about the source of the series other than the fact that it is able to produce the series (comment 125). I corrected Fish by showing how from his own concession an inference to the best explanation could be made. I argued as follows: 1. The only known cause of Y is Z. 2. We observe a particular instance of Y. 3. Because Z is the only known cause of Y, the inference to Read More ›

Mark Frank wants to know what all of the fuss is about regarding the recent empirical verification of Michael Behe’s prediction in Edge of Evolution. In response to the News post Evolutionary biologist Larry Moran tries calculating with big numbers re evolution Mark asks: I must be missing something important. As far as I can see everyone seems to agree that the mutations required for chloroquine resistance are extremely improbable and this is born out by the rarity of such resistance in the wild. So what? Fair question, to which gpuccio aptly responds: Mark: The point is simple. The malaria parasite under the extremely strong selection of chloroquine is a model extremely favourable to the neo darwinian algorithm: huge populations, Read More ›

From our own Denyse O’Leary comes this gem: “Prediction: Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism.”