kairosfocus

A few days ago, Joe passed along a hint from Petrushka concerning claims advanced by Szostak, which — via DNA Jock — were cast in the light of suggesting that design thinkers were not addressing the latest findings of OOL research. Having had a few moments, I have paused and spoken to this, in the TSZ thread. I think this, too needs to be highlighted for record: ______________ >>I took some time to see what Petrushka may be hinting at (the very coyness being suggestive that there is a lot less there than meets the eye). Here is a clip from a Scientific American (Sept 2009) article courtesy Dr Cornerlius Hunter, back at the time: There could be pools of Read More ›

Sometimes, it is necessary to point out some pretty unpleasant matters. Sometimes, that has to be done to people who have been caught up in denial and enabling power- games and associated rhetoric or propaganda. Short term, that is very unpleasant and may trigger denial in the face of painful reality (no, it is all cooked up . . . it can’t be true . . . ) This is one of those times. A few days ago, Dr Sewell again highlighted the sordid tale of how his recent article was suppressed (as was his right of reasonable reply), even as the same journal hosted a manipulative, strawman tactic rebuttal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRLSwVRdNes Similarly, Bergman recently documented what was done to Gonzalez, Read More ›

The following reply by Optimus to KN in the TSZ thread, is far too good not to headline as an excellent summary of the case for design as a scientifically legitimate view, not mere  “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo”  ideology motivated and driven by anti-materialism and/or a right-wing, theocratic, culture war mentality commonly ascribed to “Creationism” by its objectors: ______________ >> KN It’s central to the ideological glue that holds together “the ID movement” that the following are all conflated:Darwin’s theories; neo-Darwinism; modern evolutionary theory; Epicurean materialistic metaphysics; Enlightenment-inspired secularism. (Maybe I’m missing one or two pieces of the puzzle.) In my judgment, a mind incapable of making the requisite distinctions hardly deserves to be taken seriously. I think your Read More ›

Here at UD, comment exchanges can be very enlightening. In this case, in the recent Quote of the Day thread, two of the best commenters at UD — and yes, I count KN as one of the best, never mind that we often differ — have gone at it (and, Box, your own thoughts — e.g. here — were quite good too 😀 ). Let’s lead with Box: Box, 49: [KN,] your deep and important question *how do parts become integrated wholes?* need to be answered. And when the parts are excluded from the answer, we are forced to except the reality of a ‘form’ that is not a part and that does account for the integration of the parts. Read More ›

G2 has made an objection at 45 in the STP 3 thread on how UD is a philosophy-theology site, and how he sees no science advances. I think it worth the whole to highlight a response, as a headlined post supportive to the STP 3 thread; of course with the added features such as images. You are invited to comment there, from here on: ________________ >>G2: I see your @ 45: Can we just accept that UncommonDescent is a philosopy/theology site ? Im still waiting for the big advances in ID. Neat little dismissive rhetorical shot, nuh, it’s all over. Not so fast. If we are to reason accurately and soundly, we have to have the first principles of right Read More ›

Cf follow up on laws of thought including cause, here In our day, it is common to see the so-called Laws of Thought or First Principles of Right Reason challenged or dismissed. As a rule, design thinkers strongly tend to reject this common trend, including when it is claimed to be anchored in quantum theory. Going beyond, here at UD it is common to see design thinkers saying that rejection of the laws of thought is tantamount to rejection of rationality, and is a key source of endless going in evasive rhetorical circles and refusal to come to grips with the most patent facts; often bogging down attempted discussions of ID issues. The debate has hotted up over the past Read More ›

Thanks to the indefatigable BA77,  we have the new (March 1, 2013) XVIVO animation on xRNA: Notice, the recurrent cybernetic themes and discussions. Also, am I the only one who sees a space-ships and planets metaphor there? Thoughts welcome. END

Earlier today, I decided to check back at TSZ, to see if they have recovered from the recent regrettable hack attack. They are back up, at least in part. The following however, caught my eye: Intelligent design proponents make a negative argument for design.  According to them, the complexity and diversity of life cannot be accounted for by unguided evolution (henceforth referred to simply as ‘evolution’) or any other mindless natural process.  If it can’t be accounted for by evolution, they say, then we must invoke design . . . . What mysterious barrier do IDers think prevents microevolutionary change from accumulating until it becomes macroevolution?  It’s the deep blue sea, metaphorically speaking.  IDers contend that life occupies ‘islands of Read More ›

As we continue to stir the mathematics pot, BA 77 has given a link to a video on the significance of Godel’s discovery of incompleteness: [metacafe 8462821] (Pardon possible embed problems, the links work . . . I am doing this under travel related constraints) This one, gives a bit more of details on how Turing sharpened the theorem using the Turing machine, that led to the well known algorithm halting problem: [metacafe 8516356] The issue of the intuitive imagining mind as opposed to an algorithmic machine, is discussed. Worth pondering. At the same time, we must always bear in mind the famous Euler result: ei*pi + 1 = 0  This speaks to astonishing unity in Mathematics, for in one Read More ›

This morning, in the Gonzalez video post comment exchange, I saw where Mung raised a question about how Young Earth Creationists address the Old Cosmos, Old Earth implications of the view raised. I thought it useful to respond briefly, but then the wider connexions surfaced. I would like to stir the pot a bit [–> pl. note the new category], by headlining some sketched out thoughts for consideration, on the mathematical ordering of reality, and related worldviews level philosophical and even theological issues. Indeed, somewhere along the line, the whole project of the validity of a natural theology (and Biblical references to same) crops up as connected to the concerns. Kindly, consider the below scoop-out from my response to Mung Read More ›

Dr Gonzalez — the Astrophysicist half of the Privileged Planet team — recently presented this lecture in which he surveys and briefly, simply explains several key fine tuning cases: Again, useful food for thought. END PS: For more on fine tuning, cf VJT’s recent post on a new form of the inference here, and an introductory one from some time ago, here. (Note, onward linked materials.)

One of the great things about UD is the insights that often come up in the comment boxes, by design and inadvertently. And here (at 147 in the Chemist speaks out thread) we have ecs2 responding to the same “he said it” clip I highlighted yesterday. He then continues later in the thread, in response to NM at 150. Let us watch: _________________ NM: >>“Sigh. You really have no idea at all about this stuff, do you? Here’s the issue. Picture, in your head, all 5000 mammal species currently living on the planet. Now think of how many individuals are in each species — some are almost extinct, some have populations of billions. Now think about how each of these Read More ›

In the ongoing thread on Dr Tour’s declaration of concern regarding macroevolution, Mr Matzke (late of NCSE) has popped up, declaring at 118 (in reply to Groovamos at 109): Here’s the issue. Picture, in your head, all 5000 mammal species currently living on the planet. Now think of how many individuals are in each species — some are almost extinct, some have populations of billions. Now think about how each of these individuals lives and reproduces and dies over the years. Now add in how all of these individuals compete with each other, each each other, etc. Continue this process for millions of years, with species splitting and going extinct, sometimes randomly, sometimes due to climate change, sometimes due to Read More ›

Early this morning, near the Urals in Russia, HT Russia Today. (Has video.) Video, through Youtube: And, NASA has a projection of a close earth asteroid flyby at about 1 – 4 pm US Eastern Seaboard time, here: (I give more details and thoughts here.) END _____________ F/N: SLOOH gives a summary, here: {Embed fails} A day for the history books, ~ 1,000 people hurt (mostly by flying glass from the shock wave, NB in the Blitz in the 1940’s most of the dead in London were from flying glass . . . ) by a meteorite impact; never before in history. Let us trust the two reported as in critical condition do well. The coincidental timing with the near Read More ›

The Online Dictionary’s Thesaurus tells us: contradiction in terms – (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; “the statement `he is brave and he is not brave’ is a contradiction” As a capital, classic example, say the following words: “Square Circle” Now, riddle me this, riddle me that, guess me this riddle and perhaps not: DRAW ME ONE. I confidently assert [HT: Peter Cech], this cannot be done: You will observe that the square and the circle show how a circle and a square can by degrees be transformed or mapped into each other, but that the one and the same object in the same place and time cannot have the essential properties of squareness and circularity. In short, we Read More ›