Category: ID Foundations
UD Guest Post: Dr Eugen S on the second law of thermodynamics (plus . . . ) vs. “evolution”
Our Physicist and Computer Scientist from Russia — and each element of that balance is very relevant — is back, with more. MOAR, in fact. This time, he tackles the “terror-fitted depths” of thermodynamics and biosemiotics. (NB: Those needing a backgrounder may find an old UD post here and a more recent one here, helpful.) […]
A Tutorial on Specified Complexity
| December 2, 2016 | Posted by johnnyb under Complex Specified Information, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design, Video |
I’ve found that a lot of people who are interested in Intelligent Design are nonetheless unaware of the mathematics behind it. Therefore, I decided to do some videos teaching the basic ideas.
BTB: Points to ponder as we look at Crick’s understanding of DNA as text, since March 19, 1953
A few days back, I headlined a clip from Crick’s letter to his son Michael, March 19, 1953: The main text is accessible here (with page scans). Sans diagrams: >>My Dear Michael, Jim Watson and I have probably made a most important discovery. We have built a model for the structure of des-oxy-ribose-nucleic-acid (read it […]
Fixing a Confusion
| November 30, 2016 | Posted by johnnyb under Complex Specified Information, Darwinism, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design |
I have often noticed something of a confusion on one of the major points of the Intelligent Design movement – whether or not the design inference is primarily based on the failure of Darwinism and/or mechanism.
BTB, Q: Where does the FSCO/I concept come from? (Is it reasonable/ credible?)
A: One of the old sayings of WW II era bomber pilots was that flak gets heaviest over a sensitive target. So, when something as intuitively obvious and easily demonstrated as configuration-based, functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated (explicit or implicit) information — FSCO/I — becomes a focus for objections, that is an implicit sign […]
Back to Basics of ID: Induction, scientific reasoning and the design inference
In the current VJT thread on 31 scientists who did not follow methodological naturalism, it has been noteworthy that objectors have studiously avoided addressing the basic warrant for the design inference. Since this is absolutely pivotal but seems to be widely misunderstood or even dismissed without good reason, it seems useful to summarise this for […]
Full Vid: DI/Denton, privileged species
| June 11, 2016 | Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design, Privileged planet, The Design of Life, Video |
Here: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt Let us watch and ponder, then discuss. END Posts
Foundational Philosophical Alternatives
| February 26, 2016 | Posted by DLH under Atheism, Big Bang, Books of interest, Cosmology, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design, Of General Interest, Origin Of Life, Philosophy, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society |
Criminologist and former atheist Mike Adams summarizes the three foundational philosophical alternatives to the Cosmos: First, we can say that it came into being spontaneously – in other words, that it came to be without a cause. Second, we can say that it has always been. Third, we can posit some cause outside the physical […]
The Relationship Between ID and Common Descent
| October 29, 2015 | Posted by johnnyb under Darwinism, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design |
Since this has popped up a lot in the last few weeks, I wanted to repost an old post of mine describing the relationship between ID and Common Descent. I think it is pretty much as relevant now as when I originally posted it almost 6 years ago.
Chains of warrant and of causation in Origins Science
| September 8, 2015 | Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, ID Foundations, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society |
As has come up as pivotal in recent discussions here at UD, we must recognise that logic and first principles underlie any serious discussion, including origins science, and in sciences — especially those addressing origins — the issue of chains of cause will be pivotal. The two are connected, as can be seen by first […]
Following up Bostrom’s argument from simulation of universes . . .
That is, why inferring design on functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, e.g.: and equally: . . . makes good sense. Now, overnight, UD’s Newsdesk posted on a Space dot com article, Is Our Universe a Fake? The article features “Philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University.” I […]
FYI-FTR*: Part 3, Is it so, that >> . . . What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer>>
| June 1, 2015 | Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Creationism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Ethics, ID Foundations, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism |
Comments off
|
It has become apparent that a major objection by EL et al, is that ” . . . What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer” — clearly implying God as Designer/ Creator. This objection is closely backed by the now far too common atheistical/ secularist notion […]
FYI-FTR*: Part 2, Is it so that >>If current models are inadequate (and actually all models are), and indeed we do not yet have good OoL models, that does not in itself make a case for design>>
| May 31, 2015 | Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations, Irreducible Complexity, Selective Hyperskepticism |
Comments off
|
Further for record* on the case for a designer: EL, here: >> . . . What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer. If current models are inadequate (and actually all [the?] models are), and indeed we do not yet have good OoL models, that does not […]
Let’s discuss: >> Elizabeth Liddle: I do not think the ID case holds up. I think it is undermined by [want of . . . ???] any evidence for the putative designer . . . >>
In a current UD thread, Mung clips and comments: >> OT: Over at TSZ, fossils of reason occasionally appear, quite by accident. Elizabeth Liddle: I do not think the ID case holds up. I think it is undermined by any evidence for the putative designer – no hypothesis about what the designer was trying to […]
FYI-FTR: Communication system framework model . . . relevance to the cell
| May 28, 2015 | Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations, Information, Irreducible Complexity, Selective Hyperskepticism |
Comments off
|
Andre just asked me: can you please embed a flowchart of how communication works for [XXXX] … You know the one that goes like this input encoder medium decoder output. I don’t think [XXXX] understands the problems such a system has with accidental processes nor does he understand IC. Please KF. With a little bit […]
On Active Information, search, Islands of Function and FSCO/I
| May 2, 2015 | Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations |
A current rhetorical tack of objections to the design inference has two facets: (a) suggesting or implying that by moving research focus to Active Information needle in haystack search-challenge linked Specified Complexity has been “dispensed with” [thus,too, related concepts such as FSCO/I]; and (b) setting out to dismiss Active Information, now considered in isolation. Both […]
FYI-FTR: To JF (attn EL) on fitness functions, islands of function & bridging active information
| April 30, 2015 | Posted by kairosfocus under Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, FYI-FTR, ID Foundations, Information |
Comments off
|
Overnight, HT Mung, this was drawn to my attention: JF, TSZ: At the UD thread there were some loud dismissals of models that had genotypes and a fitness surface. It was declared that these genetic algorithms weren’t models of evolution. Actually DEM called such models “evolutionary search”, so they don’t seem to agree with the […]
Should ID supporters argue in terms of thermodynamics or information or [“basic . . . “] probability?
In the still active discussion thread on failure of compensation arguments, long term maverick ID (and, I think, still YEC-sympathetic) supporter SalC comments: SalC, 570: . . . I’ve argued against using information theory type arguments in defense of ID, it adds way too much confusion. Basic probability will do the job, and basic probability […]
Why I Love AVIDA – Detecting Design in Digital Organisms
| March 17, 2015 | Posted by johnnyb under Darwinism, Design inference, Evolutionary biology, ID Foundations, Informatics, Information, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity |
There are many ID’ers who complain about the AVIDA simulation, and I for the life of me can’t figure out why this is so.
Piotr (and KS, DNA_Jock, VS, Z et al) and “compensation” arguments vs the energy audit police . . .
It seems to be time to call in the energy audit police. Let us explain, in light of an ongoing sharp exchange on “compensating” arguments in the illusion of organising energy thread. This morning Piotr, an objector (BTW — and this is one time where expertise base is relevant — a Linguist), at 288 dismissed […]
