Some are still trying to jackhammer meaning out of what they claim is a meaningless universe. If they’re talking about codes but not talking about information, they’re not operating in a real space anyway. But tenured/tenure-seeking Darwinism does that to people.
The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) folk should induct ID theorist Bill Dembski into their Hall of Fame because he literally wrote the book on The Design Inference and that’s the idea that keeps them going.
As before, those who want to attribute these staggeringly complex arms races to natural selection acting on random mutations (Darwinism) are facing a huge probability gap. The processes of nature can’t be both wholly blind and highly intelligent, given time limits.
Why rush to conclude intelligent design?, asks philosopher and photographer Laszlo Bencze. He writes us to recommend a proper Darwinian view of the problem, a sort of desert version of Darwin’s “warm little pond” origin of life.
A proper Darwinian response would say that the books evolved away from the Library “daily and hourly” during those twenty years. Seriously, we sure hope they get them back.
Marine mussels have “perfected the art,” have they? If they just happen to have evolved to be so clever, why don’t they do more? It’s becoming increasingly obvious that something in nature is clever but it isn’t the mussel.
It seems more likely that the math underlying the universe plays a role in this than that somehow, hundreds of destroyed penguin species later, a single group of penguins randomly hit on the right answer.
ENCODE Encyclopaedia: It has become apparent that, by virtually any metric, elements that govern transcription, chromatin organization, splicing, and other key aspects of genome control and function are densely encoded in many parts of the human genome sequence.
Here, in human mitochondrial DNA — note the BLUE code start and the RED code stop; all HT to Wiki publishing against known ideological interest: Complex interwoven code is of course doubly functionally specific, so it is exponentially harder to account for, other than by exceedingly sophisticated and creative intelligently directed configuration. Indeed, when I Read More…
One of the more astonishing rhetorical gambits of objectors to the design inference is to try to suggest that the alphanumeric, code-using, algorithmic information system we see in the D/RNA of the living cell and linked protein synthesis is not really an information system, it all reduces to chemical reaction trains. A common associated gambit Read More…
There is a live exchange on the molecular nanotech communication systems in the cell that is trying to reduce them to Chemistry; where a chemical reaction is a physical process. Accordingly, I beg to remind one and all regarding layered communication systems and protocols: This is an elaboration of the general communication system: Here is Read More…
Interest in COVID-19 is so high here, it makes sense to post a link/excerpt to a long, careful article by Heather Zeiger at Mind Matters News, trying to piece together what really happened (and yes, there is a big science hook):
The social squid lighting system is so much more like design than Darwinism that it is hard for researchers to maintain Darwinian bafflegab and still make sense
One would feel vaguely sorry for Raymond Bergner if he found himself dealing with a horde of Darwin trolls. But it is so much easier to sympathize with people who are prepared to acknowledge facts more forthrightly and honestly.
Some researchers confuse not finding a particular type of design with ruling out design of the virus. This problem is not unique to them; it is a bad habit of the scientific community which stretches back into the 1800s.