kairosfocus

If we believe the folks over at Anti-Evo, no: Quote [KF} And it is telling that somehow Paley’s time-keeping, self replicating watch seldom if ever gets seriously discussed by those who object to his key point. [OBJECTOR} No [mocking, “outing” dimunitive], that’s the point. Watches don’t replicate… Evidently, the objector did not pause to do his homework first or think about why I stated that there has been a strawman argument, one willfully ignoring Ch II of Paley’s 1806 work. Let me clip IOSE as just linked: ____________ >> William Paley famously contrasted stumbling across a stone in a field with finding a watch in the same field; inferring design from the characteristics of a watch that are distinct from those Read More ›

ENV reports on how there seems to be an attempt to reclaim the co-founder of evolutionary theory for the anti-design camp. Such an enterprise is bound to fail the test of historical accuracy in light of a simple reading of Wallace’s The World of Life; as was recently republished by — we can’t make this up — Forgotten Books. Using a modern style, the book is: The World of Life: a manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose. That should tell us something, but evidently not enough to satisfy the enthusiasts and champions of evolutionary materialism. (Cf. the earlier posts here and here (video) on the suppressed/”forgotten” history of Darwin’s Heretic.) We could read the book, which substantiates the Read More ›

On May 16, UD News reported on the Ben Carson speech at Emory, raising some significant issues on the tendency of some Darwinists to toss ad hominem rhetorical stink-bombs at those who question the ethical implications of their views. (And yes, I am pointing to the unanswered problem that evolutionary materialism, ever since at least the days of Plato in The Laws Bk X, has never been able to objectively ground OUGHT in a worldview foundational IS that they accept.  And in light of what Hume pointed out with his guillotine argument, if such an objective basis for ought does not lie in the foundation of the worldview, it can never be brought in thereafter. Since we cannot have turtles Read More ›

Yesterday, Dr Cornelius Hunter headlined (full story here) how a Washington, DC-based, bipartisan Governor- and Captains of Industry- led Next Generation Science Standards initiative is pushing for an evolutionary materialism-loaded programme of science standards. The standards are intended to be accepted and adopted “in whole, without alteration.” A clear warning sign in an age of ever so many agendas being pushed on us as “solutions” to real or imaginary crises A to Z. The warning flag is tripped for good reason. For, a s CH documents, the proposed standards include: Anatomical similarities and differences between various organisms living today, and between them and organisms in the fossil record, enable the reconstruction of evolutionary history and the inference of lines of Read More ›

For some time now, one of the ID Foundations series, has been on the UD “most popular” list. I had occasion to visit it just now, to see why. I found a statement by a Mr Peter Griffin regarding an exchange with the pseudonymous anti design theory web personality known as Zachriel, and find myself compelled to reply to the issue of violation of confidence and willful poisoning and polarisation of issues by embroiling attacks to the person. In particular, I must note how this post plainly reflects a violation of confidence of correspondence in the teeth of an explicit act of protest regarding earlier violation of confidence. It seems that Zachriel thought he could get away with such violation Read More ›

As Dr Torley recently highlighted here at UD, Mr Dan Savage, an activist for homosexuality, recently tried to trash Bible-based Christian ethics (at a conference on bullying) by accusing the Bible of advocating slavery. (We need not elaborate on his publicly displayed ignorance on issues linked to the general, historic, NT-based Christian view on the ceremonial law in the Pentateuch, and his conflation of topics under that head with, say, relevant issues in sexual ethics and principles of core morality. Let’s just say that on ethics, I highly recommend Dr Torley’s discussion here.) When several dozen high school students walked away in protest at the tone and substance of his diatribe, he then proceeded to mock them. Oopsie! In response Read More ›

In the course of the exchanges on Dr Matzke’s clip on what “science” says can and cannot be so regarding miracles, he has made an interesting comment, here at 15: . . . I still haven’t seen anyone present a good argument as to why we can’t just say that science is the study of the usual course of events . . . Of course, he — sadly, misleadingly — failed to inform us that this highlighted phrase was taken from my own remarks in the original post (and which were followed up in the thread): It goes without needing emphasis that those who experienced the sequence A –> B –> C . . .  here [–> A, the last Read More ›

The ongoing debates over methodological naturalism have pointed us back to Newton’s Rules for scientific reasoning. So, thanks to Paul Halshall of Fordham University’s Modern History Sourcebook, let us cite for reference: ___________________ >> Modern History Sourcebook: Isaac Newton: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy [Excerpts] [The Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy] RULE I We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say, that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain, when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. RULE II Therefore to the same natural effects we Read More ›

In the ongoing Methodological Naturalism thread, at no. 66, Dr Matzke is on record: massive observational evidence and the logic of our understanding of natural laws rules say that that miracle thing can’t happen. In short he holds that the laws of nature forbid miracles. (And recall, here, we are speaking about the late publicist for the US-based NCSE, for quite some years.) Oopsie. Double oopise. Triple oopsie. And cf. here, too. In a nutshell, Dr Matzke here seems to make a crude form of the error commonly attributed to Hume (and too often seen as a definitive dismissal of the miraculous). He also reveals that behind methodological naturalism, there may often lurk a prior (and perhaps implicit) commitment to Read More ›

Yesterday, UD’s News announced a free chart of fallacies. I thought, oh, yay, let’s download. But, once I began to look at the chart, I noticed that it presented Plato, Socrates and Aristotle in a way that seemed to mock the orthodox Christian triune concept of God. (Did it ever strike the creator of the chart, that Plato is a foundational design thinker? Cf here on.) Clue no 1. Clue no 2 was that many fallacies seemed to have odd names. And, “thou shalt not commit logical fallacies” in that context suggests that, as with too many presentations on fallacies I have seen online, this is an agenda in disguise: you object to “our” views because you are dumb and/or Read More ›

I passed by and noticed Gil’s go-to-the heart-of-the-matter comment on the “a picture is worth . . . “ thread: The worst part is that these clowns are destroying public trust in legitimate science. As usual, Gil has gone straight to the key point. When science and science education as well as popular science and science-related journalism are ideologised and made into little more than agenda talking points, sooner or later, science is going to pay the price for the ideologues we can see dressing themselves up in the holy lab coat and demanding genuflection before their favourite myths. (And of course, predictably, they will try to twist the issue about, and accuse those who challenge them of being “anti Read More ›

Passed by and noticed Dr Hunter’s post on Nagel’s forthcoming book.  (And, objectors, Nagel is a serious philosopher of mind, writing in his area of expertise.  As in, author of “What is it like to be a bat?”) Going to the Oxford University Press [OUP] book page, I noticed another name popping up: Plantinga. As in, the man who blew away the logical form of the problem of evil. Passed by my thread on It’s Friday, but Sunday is coming, and saw Axel’s comment. Clipping: . . . while on the subject of the materialists’ desperation to quash any theistic assumption from scientific consideration, surely the proven precedence of mind over matter in physics points unequivocally to a personal God. Read More ›

What on earth does the title of a famous Good Friday Sermon have to do with the ID controversy? (Even, come Easter Sunday morning . . . ) A lot. Sadly. As I was reading and thinking about Dr Torley’s latest amazing UD series and some of UD’s ever so fascinating comments [one of the best features of UD is comments], I was led to look at the Dr Townes story, and related matters. One of the findings is how Dr Townes, a Nobel Prize holder for physics, turns out to be a cosmological design thinker who actually supports intelligent design in an evolutionary framework [i.e. pretty similar to Wallace, co-founder of modern evolutionary theory], but sees ID as anti-evolutionism. Read More ›

While promoters of the US Army-hosted “Rock Beyond Belief” concert that featured prof Dawkins (of The God Delusion notoriety) and Aiden (the band behind the “Atheist’s anthem” vid that features a vampire clergy image and worse lyrics) projected 5,000 attendees, reports suggest a turnout of about 200 , mostly “civilian[s].” (One guesses, many would be members of the local atheist fraternity.) That’s about a 90 – 95% over-estimate of attendance. According to reports: Fort Bragg’s Rock Beyond Belief passed quietly last Saturday.  While organizers had predicted a crowd of 5,000, Richard Dawkins, the main draw of the event whose “sell out” crowds were the justification for the attendance forecast, ultimately spoke to only “a couple hundred” spectators.  Photos of the Read More ›

A few days back, Dr Hunter highlighted here and at his own blog, a suggestion in PLoS that CaMKII-MT “bytes” are used in neurons to store six-bit coded information. (BTW, “byte” can be used for short bit arrays, not just eight-bit ones.) Let’s look at an illustration:   Clipping the Author Summary of the PLoS article by Travis J. A. Craddock1*, Jack A. Tuszynski1,2, & Stuart Hameroff: Memory is understood as strengthened synaptic connections among neurons. Paradoxically components of synaptic membranes are relatively short-lived and frequently re-cycled while memories can last a lifetime. This suggests synaptic information is encoded at a deeper, finer-grained scale of molecular information within post-synaptic neurons. Long-term memory requires genetic expression, protein synthesis, and delivery of Read More ›