Of needles in haystacks (3 1/2 light days* on the side) and materialist a priorism in science
Foundational concepts and evidence for inferring design in light of empirically tested, reliable, observable signs
One of the saddest facets of the modern, unfortunately poisonously polarised debates over origins science, is the evident suppression (yes, suppressed: at top level, people are responsible to give a true, fair, balanced view of an important matter based on the due diligence of thorough and balanced research . . . ) of relevant history, such as Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution.
ID 101/Foundations, 6: Introducing and explaining the cosmological design inference on fine tuning, with onward reference links (including on Stenger’s attempted rebuttals)
Is the CSI concept well-founded mathematically, and can it be applied to the real world, giving real and useful numbers? YES, YES and YES . . .
One of the most common objections to design thought is the idea that it is about the improper injection of the alien supernatural into the world of science. (That is itself based on a strawman misrepresentation of design thought, as was addressed here a few days ago.) However, there is an underlying root, a common […]
Yesterday, in the P Z Myers quote-mining and distortion thread, I happened to cite Lewontin’s infamous 1997 remark in his NYRB article, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” on a priori imposition of materialist censorship on origins science, which reads in the crucial part: It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel […]
(ID Foundations series so far: 1, 2, 3, 4 ) In a current UD discussion thread, frequent commenter MarkF (who supports evolutionary materialism) has made the following general objection to the inference to design: . . . my claim is not that ID is false. Just that is not falsifiable. On the other hand claims […]
(NB: ID Foundations Series, so far: 1, 2, 3.) In a recent comment on the ID Foundations 3 discussion thread, occasional UD commenter LastYearOn [henceforth LYO], remarked: Behe is implicitly assuming that natural processes cannot explain human technology. However natural processes do explain technology, by explaining humans. We may think of computers as somehow distinct […]
[ID Found’ns Series, cf. also Bartlett here] Irreducible complexity is probably the most violently objected to foundation stone of Intelligent Design theory. So, let us first of all define it by slightly modifying Dr Michael Behe’s original statement in his 1996 Darwin’s Black Box [DBB]: What type of biological system could not be formed by […]
In two recent UD threads, frequent commenter AI Guy, an Artificial Intelligence researcher, has thrown down the gauntlet: Winds of Change, 76: By “counterflow” I assume you mean contra-causal effects, and so by “agency” it appears you mean libertarian free will. That’s fine and dandy, but it is not an assertion that can be empirically […]
It has been said that “Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection” . . .” This puts the design inference at the […]
In 2005, David L Abel and Jack T Trevors published a key article on order, randomness and functionality, that sets a further context for appreciating the warrant for the design inference. The publication data and title for the peer-reviewed article are as follows: Theor Biol Med Model. 2005; 2: 29. Published online 2005 August 11. […]
As a preliminary step to a discussion [DV, to follow] of the significance of and warrant for the design inference, let us now symbolise how we interact with and draw inferences about signs and symbols (generally following Peirce et al [Added, Feb 28: including P’s thought on warrant by inference to best explanation i.e. abductive […]