Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Author

DLH

Does citing PCID justify censorship?

A web page on “Einstein’s razor” at Wikipedia and ResearchID cited:
* Q. T. Jackson (2005) describes:

“a corollary from Occam’s Razor, which I shall call herein ”Einstein’s Razor.” The notion that a theory should be as simple as possible (but no simpler). . . Einstein’s Razor brings forward the following notion: ”even when a simple explanation is theoretically sufficient, it is sometimes insufficient to reach desired goals.” That is, some ”needs” or ”goals” are not necessarily attainable by the simpler of two or more systems. . . . When Occam’s Razor is insufficiently sharp to split hairs, Einstein’s Razor is required.”

Read More ›

“No process can result in a net gain of information” underlies 2LoT

Further to Granville Sewell‘s work on the 2nd Law in an open system, here is Duncan & Semura profound insight into how loss of information is the foundation for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This appears foundational to the understanding and development and testing of origin theories and consequent change in physical and biotic systems. ———————

The key insight here is that when one attempts to derive the second law without any reference to information, a step which can be described as information loss always makes its way into the derivation by some sleight of hand. An information-losing approximation is necessary, and adds essentially new physics into the model which is outside the realm of energy dynamics.

Read More ›

Leibniz: “machines of nature” >> “all artificial automata”

{Frost122585and Gerry Rzeppa started an interesting off topic train of thought on Leibniz and design of “machines of nature” vs “artificial automata” that is worth its own thread. I copied those posts below and will delete the others. DLH}
——————-
Frost122585
In Leibniz’s Monadology he talks about the difference between man made art and the art of God- which for me creates a very interesting problem for ID- one that could if described and understood correctly – lead to an even better understanding of Design in nature-

“Thus the organic body of each living being is a kind of divine machine or natural automaton, which infinitely surpasses all artificial automata. For a machine made by the skill of man is not a machine in each of its parts. For instance, the tooth of a brass wheel has parts or fragments which for us are not artificial products, and which do not have the special characteristics of the machine, for they give no indication of the use for which the wheel was intended. But the machines of nature, namely, living bodies, are still machines in their smallest parts ad infinitum. It is this that constitutes the difference between nature and art, that is to say, between the divine art and ours.”

Read More ›

Melkikh’s Improbability of Darwinism and deterministic evolution model

Is is said that in the USA one can criticize politics but not evolution, while in Russia one can criticize evolution but not politics. The Russian author Alexey Melkikh provides the most spectacular improbability of Darwinian evolution that I have seen. He then proposes a mode of evolution without mutation. As some readers have asked for more science based posts, enjoy. ————-
INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLE AND POSSIBLE DETERMINISTIC MECHANISM OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION Alexey V. Melkikh, (Ural state technical university, Molecular physics chair,) Entropy 2004, 6, 223–232

It was shown that the probability of new species formation by means of random mutations is negligibly small. . . . The problem is that the Darwin mechanism of the evolution (a random process) cannot explain the known rate of the species evolution. In accordance with the very first estimates, the total number of possible combinations of nucleotides in the DNA is about 4^(2×10^9) (because four types of nucleotides are available, while the number of nucleotides in the DNA of higher organisms is about 2×10^9). . . . Thus, finally we have P = 10^57000000. This figure is vanishingly small. Therefore, a conclusion may be drawn that species could not be formed due to random mutations.

Read More ›

Marshall Institute critiques Climate Science

The George C. Marshal Institute‘s 3rd edition of Climate Issues and Questions is a refreshing effort to provide a dispassionate evaluation of 29 major questions regarding the science of “climate change”, and to separate those from political agendas. Their method and effort is well worth considering in light of the current debate over origins of biological systems and of the universe. In particular, consider their examination of how “scientific consensus” is achieved (vs political hegemony by special interests). Their observation that climate science is relatively new parallels the current developments in origin theories. Note particularly the current explosion of knowledge about the genome and the incredible information rich complexity of biochemical processes. Compare that to the paucity of scientific hypotheses (let alone theories) that predict that knowledge and complexity. ——————————————-

Climate Issues & Questions

The debate over the state of climate science and what it tells us about past and future climate has been going on for twenty years. It is not close to resolution, in spite of assertions to the contrary. What is often referred to as a “consensus” is anything but. In many cases, this consensus represents the “expert judgment” of a handful of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) authors, which other researchers can and do disagree with. For many, especially those engaged in advocacy, the claim of consensus is a device used to advance their agenda.
Read More ›

Simpler DNA coding designed

A simpler cheaper system has been developed to code in DNA. This implicitly recognizes the more complex coding in native DNA. (The news article also assumes the evolutionary doctrine of “junk DNA”.) The contrast with hard drives, this low density coding method and natural DNA shows the very high coding density in DNA.
————————

Human genome may end up as world’s smallest hard drive

. . .the researchers discovered a system to encode digital information within DNA. This method relies on the length of the fragments obtained by the partial restriction digest rather than the actual content of the nucleotide sequence. As a result, the technology eliminates the need to use expensive sequencing machinery.

Read More ›

Miller’s “Evolutionary Design” – an oxymoron or Trojan horse?

“Evolution” is defined so broadly as to prevent refutation. That requires that the whale of “macroevolution” (simple organism to human beings) must be swallowed along with the gnat of “microevolution” – any mutation or change = “evolution”.

Now Kenneth Miller is attempting to transform the Design vs Evolution argument, by claiming nature reveals “evolutionary design” – purely based on “nature” – without an intelligent cause.
Will the public recognize this as an oxymoron?
OR
Will it welcomed as the Trojan horse that undermines Intelligent Design?
————————
There Is ‘Design’ In Nature, Biologist Argues

“ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2008) — Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller has to hand one victory to the “intelligent design” crowd. They know how to frame an issue. “The idea that there is ‘design’ in nature is very appealing,” Miller said. “People want to believe that life isn’t purposeless and random. That’s why the intelligent design movement wins the emotional battle for adherents despite its utter lack of scientific support.”

“To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of ‘design’ and the sense of purpose and value inherent in a scientific understanding of nature,” he said.
In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston,* Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of “design” — the correlation of structure with function that lies at the heart of the molecular nature of life. . . “

Read More ›

Reverse-engineer the brain – NAE’s grand challenge

One of the grand engineering challenges issued by The National Academy of Engineering is to Reverse-engineer the brain.
If the NAE considers it possible to Reverse-engineer the brain, does not that imply that the brain may have been engineered in the first place? i.e., as in designed by an intelligent agent? As you read through these materials, compare the close parallels with engineering design methods and what researchers are discovering about the brain, (compared to chance processes.) (Hmm. Is that why brain neurons were used for The Design of Life cover!) Perhaps we can see productive reverse engineering research supported by grants from the National Academy of Engineering. with true scientific freedom to pursue where the data leads.

Reverse-engineer the brain
Why should you reverse-engineer the brain?

The intersection of engineering and neuroscience promises great advances in health care, manufacturing, and communication.
. . . the secrets about how living brains work may offer the best guide to engineering the artificial variety. Discovering those secrets by reverse-engineering the brain promises enormous opportunities for reproducing intelligence the way assembly lines spit out cars or computers. . . .

Read More ›

Florida’s Darwinian Standards evolve to “a scientific theory”

Could Florida’s Darwinian regulations be “evolving” from “fact” to free inquiry? In More on the vote on evolution and Florida’s new science standards Leslie Postal reports that teaching Evolution in schools is now mandated, but officially as the “scientific theory of” Evolution.

Will students now be able to seriously study evolution as “a scientific theory” – with all the testing, probing, and skepticism required by the scientific method? Or will they be Expelled for exercising their unalienable rights to free speech? – that founded the Declaration of Independence (which heads the US Codes Organic Laws) and are preserved by the First Amendment.
In a Special Report on the American Spectator Ben Stein writes::

Read More ›

NASA says Hello Universe

NASA, the NY Times and most intelligent human beings apparently believe that it is possible to communicate across space – i.e., to detect signals that can be distinguished from natural causes and “noise”, which give evidence of other intelligent beings! e.g., Beatles songs vs quasar pulses and lightning pulses. ——————– NASA Says, ‘Hello, Universe. Meet the Beatles.’ By Patrick J. Lyons NY Times February 1, 2008, 4:47 pm . . . NASA will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of its first space mission — the launch of the Explorer 1 satellite — by using the system of huge antennas that usually listen for inbound signals from space to send one outbound instead: the Beatles’ song “Across the Universe,” which as Read More ›

Understanding Intelligent Design Theory – The Seoul Times

Posted to give glimpses of international interest in ID. Korea appears to allow significant freedom of speech and inquiry. ———————————- Special Contribution By Babu G. Ranganathan The Seoul Times, Global Views Jan 28, 2008 Understanding Intelligent Design Theory Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visitor coming to the planet and, after many years of studying these robots, the alien scientist visitor comes to the conclusion that since science can explain how these robots work, operate, function and reproduce there’s no reason to believe that there was an ultimate intelligent designer behind them. The analogy above certainly is not perfect but Read More ›

Are ATP energy cycles essential for life?

“The energy in the ATP molecule powers all biological processes. Thus, the synthesis of ATP is essential for life.” Sir. John Walker, The ATP Synthase Group, MRC Dunn Human Nutrition Unit ATP Synthase has been frequently discussed at Uncommon Descent including Intelligent Engineering or Natural Selection 15 July 2006 “Our job is to follow the money, track and document the flow of funds, and thereby help prove the underlying criminal activity.” Eileen Mayer, Chief, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division I propose that one of the most important concepts in Intelligent Design vs evolution is to “follow the energy trail“. This will be especially important in examining the origin of life. Energy processes are central to design of dynamic systems. Read More ›

“Making Space for Time” – Is cosmic order evidence for ID?

Making Space for Time – Physicists meet to puzzle out why time flows one way. Scott Dodd. Scientific American, January 2008 p 26,27,28.   This article cites physicists invoking multiverses to explain high order in the early cosmos – and that less order would have prevented universes from surviving or evolving to support intelligent life. This sounds like evidence for Intelligent Design – and efforts to explain it away. This calls for brilliant astrophysicists and mathematicians to address this controversial evidence from an ID perspective. Note particularly: ————— “The cosmic microwave background radiation, a remnant of the big bang, shows that 380,000 years after its birth, the universe was filled with hot gas, all evenly distributed and highly ordered. Eventually Read More ›

Let’s open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories

A thoughtful article by a perceptive engineer. A good example of priming the Origins Debate pump. —————————— Let’s open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories Intricacies of Earth life-forms, microscopes challenge evolution ideas Gordon Rose, Letter, Indianapolis Star Dec. 15, 2007 “In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most interesting as well as important subjects being taught. Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest lie in education — the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn’t be taught — it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such Read More ›

> 400 Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming: US Senate Report

How do science skeptics and those introducing paradigm shifts get their papers published in the face of politically correct coercion by a dogmatic majority and lemming press? Persistence, and banding together may help. Following is a fascinating report by the US Senate that may result in a critical mass begin to form against the politically correct band wagon of man-made global warming. Perhaps we can begin to have a serious scientific debate on this issue based on evidence. What can ID learn from these developments? ————————————————————— U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 Senate Report Debunks “Consensus” “Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK) Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK) INTRODUCTION: Over 400 prominent Read More ›