niwrad

Evolutionist atheist physicist Sean Carroll suggests that infinite past time exists. Basically it is a move to deny God: if time has no beginning, the cosmos has no beginning, then there is no need of a Creator. Moreover infinite time gives more probabilistic resources to evolutionism.   Unfortunately an infinite past time is nonsense. See the following figure:     Scenario A shows the actual situation of the arrow of time, running from left to right, from today to the future. If this arrow is infinite then we would have no last day.   To scenario A we apply a shift according to a leftward vector of infinite length to get scenario B suggested by Carroll. Of course the arrow Read More ›

As known, complex numbers are numbers of the form: z = x + i y where x is the real part, y is the imaginary part and “i” is the square root of -1. Complex numbers have many applications in science, where it is necessary, in the same time, to collect together and discriminate two heterogeneous entities. Here, as brainstorming, I propose to consider complex numbers when we deal with the complexity/organization of systems. We could define the measure of the “complexity c(S) of a system S” as a complex number z: c(S) = z = x + i y = quantity + i quality = matter + i information where x is a measure of its quantitative aspects (mass, Read More ›

In his Origin of Species Darwin quoted six times the Latin sentence “natura non facit saltus” (“nature makes no leap”, it is a maxim expressing the idea that natural things and their properties change gradually, in a continuum, rather than suddenly). All the times Darwin used such quote to justify his idea that species arose gradually, by means of small advantageous increments, contra what he called “the theory of Creation” supposed discrete: As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. Hence the canon of “Natura non facit saltum,” which every fresh addition to our knowledge tends to make more Read More ›

While most people agree that simple laws/rules per se cannot create information, some believe that algorithms are capable to do that. This seems an odd idea, because algorithms, i.e. sets of instructions, after all can be considered complex laws/rules, or set of rules, sort of generalizations of rules. The usual and simplest example some evolutionists offer to prove that algorithms can produce information is a stochastic algorithm that, by randomly choosing characters from the English alphabet, in a number of trials, finally outputs the phrase “methinks it is like a weasel” (or whatever else phrase with meaning). This way it seems to them that information is produced by randomness + laws, or even created from nothing. Let’s admit for the Read More ›

In automatic control theory “homeostasis” is defined as the property of a system in which variables are regulated so that internal conditions remain stable and relatively constant. Homeostasis is a fundamental concept in biology because is what allows the life of organisms. In fact, it maintains the stability of the organisms in response to changes in external conditions. The concept of homeostasis is tied to the strictly correlation and interdependence of all systems in a body, i.e. its functional unity. Organisms can live and survive only because are giant cybernetic hierarchical hologramatic macro-systems. Donald Johnson defines cybernetics as: … the interdisciplinary study of control systems with feedback. (Programming of Life, Big Mac Publishers 2010) While Norbert Wiener, about homeostasis, writes: Read More ›

I dedicate this short post to our great UD President Barry Arrington, who is a poker player. Evolutionists usually claim that prerequisite for Darwinian evolution is a single self-replicating thing capable of heritable variations. From such thing evolution produced all life forms, from ameba to whales, by means of small random variations and natural selection. Just for fun, we could metaphorically see evolution as a particular “poker game”, with the following correlations: (1) The dealer deals shuffled cards to the players. This shuffling is analogous to the genotypic random variations. (2) The active players show their cards, and the owner of the best five-card hand wins. These players are analogous to the phenotypes, the organisms that fight for survival. (3) Read More ›

There are many perspectives and arguments showing the absurdity of Darwinism. One of them consists in analyzing the so-called Darwin’s demon. Here I don’t mean the devil suggesting to Charles Darwin that God was non necessary because evolution created the beings. To know what I mean with “Darwin’s demon” we have to compare a thermodynamic scenario and a biological scenario. Let’s start with the former: A box B1 containing gas molecules is divided in two zones by a central wall. A zone is filled with gas and the other is void. If in this wall we create a hole h the gas diffuses in both zones. The hole doesn’t increase the degree of organization of the gas molecules, which paths Read More ›

How to distinguish organization from simple order? One of the many ways is to note that usually organization implies two paradigms at work: control and power. Power is potentiality, energy, mass, whatever can provide or transmit stuff and work. Control is what is able to govern, manage, drive, lead, regulate power. Order never implies control and power. Compared to organization, order is trivial, and between them there is a real qualitative gap. Note that – only seemingly paradoxical – the relationship between control and power can be seen as a relation between what is active (control) and what is passive (power). Don’t be surprised I consider passive the power. Power without control is useless and may be even destructive of Read More ›

In a previous post of UD News, Denyse O’Leary rightly defines the multiverses as “one of the many products of methodological naturalism”. Here I want only to focus a bit why this product is quite inconsistent and even worsens the case of atheist cosmology. The multiverse (alias short form for “multi-universes”) supposition (mainly arising from odd interpretations related to mathematical solutions of equations of “strings theories” in modern physics) is that there is a large number of universes beyond ours, each with its own laws, parameters and physical constants. About this number there is no agreement (ranging from 10^500 to 10^10^10,000,000 and beyond), and just this speaks volumes on the reliability of the idea. Anyway let’s call “N” this number. Read More ›

My post intends to be a response to a previous UD article by scordova. Scordova, who asks “should ID include AI as a form of intelligence?” and answers “I think so”, is aware to have put on the table a critical topic because himself writes: I know many of my ID colleagues will disagree or will remain skeptical of adopting such a convention. I am one of his ID colleagues who disagrees and I will explain why. Scordova wrote: So what is the evidence of intelligence? I would suggest the ability to construct artifacts or events with Specified Improbability (the usual term is Specified Complexity, CSI, etc. but those terms are too confusing). This is an extremely reductive way to Read More ›

Actually the available hardware computing power is enormous and the software technologies are very sophisticated and powerful. Given the above fortunate situation about the technological advance of informatics, many phenomena and processes in many fields are successfully computer simulated. Routinely airplane pilots and astronauts learn their job in dedicated simulators, and complex processes, as weather forecast and atomic explosions, are simulated on computers. Question: why Darwinian unguided evolution hasn’t been yet computer simulated? I wonder why evolutionists haven’t yet simulated it, so to prove us that Darwinism works. As known, experiments of evolution in vitro failed, then maybe experiments in silico would work. Why don’t evolutionists show us in a computer the development of new biological complexity by simulating random Read More ›

Industry is constantly searching for technologies to maximize profits and minimize costs. Software industry is no exception (the world software market exceeded $300 billion). Actually some computers can process quadrillions floating-point operations per second (10^15 flops). It would be technically possible to implement on such computers the paradigm of unguided evolution (random variation + selection) for obtaining new programs by randomly modifying old programs. So, why software houses pay legions of human programmers to develop ex-novo applications when an automatic process could do the job? They could save truckloads of money by automatizing, at least in large part if not in toto, the software development work flow. To have an idea, let’s perform two simplified calculations about the speed of Read More ›

Often Intelligent Design is accused by some evolutionists of not being able to perfectly calculate the complex specified information of a system. From that accusation some ID opponents directly infer that ID has no scientific status. In my opinion this accusation and its corollary is a pure demagogical pretest, a weak excuse. See the following image (sizes are not real): The image shows, from left to right, a clothespin, a bike and a bird. To whoever uses such pretest against ID I ask this simple question: what is more complex, more organized, between a clothespin and a bike? What do you answer? Do you answer clothespin is more complex? No, you answer the bike is more complex. Did you need Read More ›

Evolutionists believe that mind can rise from matter. From atoms configured into molecules, configured into cells, configured into tissues, configured into a brain, mind can rise. Their molecules-to-man evolution story is in fact the narrative of the emergency of mind from matter. Here, in a sense, evolutionism and artificial intelligence (AI) meet in developing a fallacious more-from-less scenario. For example, an evolutionist says: I think that “larger objects” have properties not possessed by their parts. These properties include the capacity to have purposes, designs, moral principles, beauty, love, anger, and fear. According to this evolutionist naturalistic conception, a “larger object” is simply a specific configuration of atoms, enough large to develop the emergent properties. The belief that properties as those Read More ›

For the sake of argument, let’s surmise that, after a long controversy, finally ID succeeds in scientifically convincing all people that life and the universe are designed. Good, but what happens now? If the universe is a design there must be a designer. What is the designer? It is likely that evolutionists convinced to ID were atheists or at least agnostic. Therefore for these persons, quite paradoxical, accepting ID could imply a very critical point in their intellectual path. Let’s start with the worse possibility. The worse case for them would be to equate the designer with something that has nothing to do with God, or – worse – even with something that is a caricature of God. This is Read More ›