kairosfocus

It seems that another response to VS needs to be headlined, the second within a few days. We are seeing here the sort of breakdown of reasoning that seems to be implicit in making ever more determined objections to the design inference on FSCO/I as sign. While we are at it, let’s take advantage of media features of an OP: _______________ >> This, from 74 above, is a New-Speak classic: Not unless one tries to sneak in teleology into the word ” directed” , I think Delicate Arch is a non intelligent controlled/ directed configuration.Natural forces cause the pattern of elements , the design.Since ID is agnostic on the mechanism of design,it cannot say where the Fsco/I it detects came Read More ›

In the Pearcey book excerpt thread, I just had an exchange of views with VS on the nature of design that led to a comment at no 67 which I think is worth headlining. As, it seems that meaning of key terms such as design is now a focal issue: ________________ >> This caught my eye, per how one slice of a cake has in it all the key ingredients: KF [cf 50 supra]: when the investigations tell us (a) that FSCO/I is a strong sign of design as cause VS: You forget I think that a non intelligent directed configurations are also a form of design. This seems a rather new-speak-esque conflation and — with all due respect — Read More ›

Over the past day or so, following a News post, the self referential incoherences of evolutionary materialism have been coming under the microscope here at UD. In the course of such, the indefatigable (but often “misunderestimated”) BA77 has again struck gold. As in per famed eccentric and insightful mystic, William Blake, Tiger, tiger, burning bright . . . And, how could we honour BA77 without a vid? So . . (While we are at it, Eye of the Tiger, vid + lyrics.) Well worth headlining: _______________ BA77: >>I like the nuance that Dr. Pearcey draws out. It is not only that, under materialistic premises, our perceptions may be false, it is also that, under materialistic premises, free will, consciouness and Read More ›

CHartsil has now earned UD objector poster-child status, regarding a talking point he used to try to divert a News thread: If ID is science, then put it through the scientific method. You don’t just get to say it’s a valid alternative when evolution has been put through the wringer and ID proponents have failed to produce so much as a single mechanism of design. Let’s take this in steps of thought: >> If ID is science, then put it through the scientific method.>> 1 –> This raises the issue as to what science properly understood is, and what its methods are. As there has been a recent agenda to redefine science as applied materialism dressed up in a lab coat, Read More ›

Video, well worth watching: (–> also cf the audio by John Lennox here. The Worldviews 101 here on may also be of help.) Full presentation (v. fat download). PDF, with notes. Abstract: The New Atheism claims being a scientist and a Christian is like being a vegan butcher. But both today and in history, many scientists, Mathematicians and engineers are motivated in their work by the uncovering of precise orderliness, underlying simplicity, and inherent beauty of God’s creations. Many not only study the creation., but have pursued the identity of the creator and have found Him in the foundational tenets of Christianity. Some of these scientists are: o Isaac Newton – the father of classical physics and co-creatorof calculuso Michael Read More ›

Here: And while one may have reservations or quibbles about particular cases, the overall point is well taken. In her article on a “top ten” list of astro-turfers, she comments, soberingly: What’s most successful when it appears to be something it’s not? Astroturf. As in fake grassroots. The many ways that corporations, special interests and political interests of all stripes exploit media and the Internet to perpetuate astroturf is ever-expanding. Surreptitious astroturf methods are now more important to these interests than traditional lobbying of Congress. There’s an entire PR industry built around it in Washington . . . . Astroturfers often disguise themselves and publish blogs, write letters to the editor, produce ads, start non-profits, establish Facebook and Twitter accounts, Read More ›

NB: RDM paper, here In the current VJT discussion thread on What Evidence is, RD Miksa asks a telling question (slightly adjusted for readability) of naturalistic hyperskeptics: RDM, 25:  . . . the ironic thing to note in terms of comments from the anti-super-naturalist side is how they fail to realize that their very own arguments undermine their own naturalistic position. Indeed, note their use of the poorly-formulated but often used mantra “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Note how this mantra is used to claim–in the context of this discussion–how it is apparently more rational to believe that hundreds of witnesses hallucinated or colluded or lied rather than believe that a man levitated. But the problem is, such an argument Read More ›

Long-time visitors or regulars at UD will know that (along with StephenB who drew the significance to my attention . . . ) I champion the idea of self-evident, plumb-line first principles of right reason: That is, if we contemplate say a bright red ball on a table, we see a world-partition: W = { A | ~A } . . . which leads to manifesting the classic laws of identity [A is A not non-A], non contradiction [(A AND ~A) = 0] , and excluded middle . . . this, best expressed as (A X-OR ~A) = 1. Likewise, I have argued for a weak-form principle of sufficient reason. Contemplating that ball on the table, it is natural to Read More ›

Over the past few months, I noticed objectors to design theory dismissing or studiously ignoring a simple — much simpler than a clock — macroscopic example of Functionally Specific, Complex Organisation and/or associated Information (FSCO/I) and its empirically observed source, the ABU-Garcia Ambassadeur 6500 C3 fishing reel: Yes, FSCO/I is real, and has a known cause. {Added, Feb 6} It seems a few other clearly paradigmatic cases will help rivet the point, such as the organisation of a petroleum refinery: . . . or the wireframe view of a rifle ‘scope (which itself has many carefully arranged components): . . . or a calculator circuit: . . . or the wireframe for a gear tooth (showing how complex and exactingly Read More ›

Sometimes, we see a classic comment by objectors that reveals much about what we face. Accordingly, it is appropriate to headline the remark and a response (which I will use original post powers to augment slightly): Here is AS: Rebuttals of what? The simple fact is that religious dogmas are made up. They have no existence in reality beyond human imagination. The boot is one the other foot. If you have evidence of the objective reality of some religious concept, then, bring it on. Here is my response: _______________ >> AS: I saw Timaeus commenting [–> cf. here, especially], who is always worth a read. In your exchange with him you tossed this atheistical talking point, which drips with contempt Read More ›

I keep getting pulled away from an intended post [– U/D, Feb 18 2015: cf here — ]  on FSCO/I  and that famous little round reel as an undeniably concrete case in point: I have to get around to it . . . Anyway, a couple of days ago, given some recent exchanges in and around UD, I took time to post a William Lane Craig animation on morality, which has excited quite a debate. It’s probably worth re-posting the animation: Along the way, the significance of the IS-OUGHT gap and of the inherently good God, a necessary and maximally great being as the only serious candidate IS who can ground OUGHT has come up (e.g. cf here). That leads Read More ›

Here: In this video, Dr Craig argues that we have good reason to accept the objectivity of ought, and from that we see that there is a credible ground of such, God. In slightly more details, if one rejects the objectivity of the general sense of OUGHT as governing our behaviour, we are implying a general delusion. Where, as there are no firewalls in the mind . . . a general delusion undermines the general credibility of knowledge and rationality. And in practice even those who most passionately argue for moral subjectivity live by the premise that moral principles such as fairness, justice, doing good by neighbour etc are binding. That is, there is no good reason to doubt that Read More ›

An article in Salon caught my eye while looking at other things online: Saturday, Jan 3, 2015 10:00 AM -0400 God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified A young MIT professor is finishing Darwin’s task — and threatening to undo everything the wacky right holds dear Paul Rosenberg The triumphalistic tone and immediate leap to a socio-cultural and/or aggressive materialistic agenda backed up by denigratory caricatures, published in a seemingly respectable magazine, already speak inadvertent volumes. But the lead-in to the piece (leaving off some rhetorical points-scoring off the bogeymen Mr Rosenberg particularly targets and evidently views as insane) is where the other shoe, proverbially, drops: Darwin also didn’t have Read More ›

Here’s the old, old story in animated form: (Never mind one or two odd points, quite good enough for family sharing — and note, dubbed from a version prepared in India. This, is a more traditional short acted movie. And if you want stuff on the “backative” side (as in, it’s not just a fairy tale), try here. This, here, will help on worldviews issues.) And of course, we have a hot thread that was running on is zero even and is now on mathematical abstractions. It seems, Plato’s cave parable is also appropriate: . . . especially given these remarks in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount: Matt 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth Read More ›

The latest cluster of dismissive talking points on the design inference pivot on caricatures describing invisible fairy-tale like supernatural entities. These need to be answered for record, and so let me headline a comment post that addresses these in the context of the agit-prop message dominance rhetorical tactics they represent, augmenting a bit using the facilities provided for a WP blog post: _____________ >>we need to understand some agit-prop rhetorical strategies that are at work: 1: Notice how the focus has been pulled away from the central issue put on the table across the ’70′s by Orgel and Wicken, ORGEL, 1973: . . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the Read More ›