Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Intelligent Design

HeKS continues to suggest a way forward on the KS “bomb” argument

Last week, one of my comments relating to the KS “bomb” argument was made the subject of an OP, which can be found here. In that comment, I had offered a few preliminary thoughts on Keith’s argument (originally found here, and summarized by him here) and asked a few questions to better understand the assumptions informing his argument. Unfortunately, the issues raised in my OP comment, as far I can tell, were never actually addressed. Instead, the ‘responses’ in the ensuing conversation revolved almost entirely around what the participating ID proponents considered obviously false analogies, which invoked “Planetary Angels”, “Rain Fairies”, “Salt Leprechauns”, and “Toilet Whales”. Regarding these analogies, Keith, Zachriel, and other ID opponents, seemed to be arguing as though ID Read More ›

On “Specified Complexity,” Orgel and Dembski

Bill Dembski often uses the term “specified complexity” to denote a characteristic of patterns that are best explained by the act of an intelligent designer. He defines the term as follows: What is specified complexity? An object, event, or structure exhibits specified complexity if it is both complex (i.e., one of many live possibilities) and specified (i.e., displays an independently given pattern). A long sequence of randomly strewn Scrabble pieces is complex without being specified. A short sequence spelling the word “the” is specified without being complex. A sequence corresponding to a Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified. William A. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), xiii.   Read More ›

Darwinian Debating Device # 18: “Me or Your Lying Eyes”

The chutzpah Darwinists sometimes bring to the table is often breathtaking. This tactic is based on the old saw about the wife who catches her husband in flagrante delicto with another woman and the following exchange ensues: Wife: “How could you?” Husband: “How could I what?” Wife: “Be in bed with another woman of course!” Husband: “I’m not in bed with another woman.” Wife: “I see her right there.” Husband: “No you don’t.” Wife: “Yes I do” Husband: “Who are you going to believe, me our your lying eyes?” It is not unusual for an exchange with a Darwinist to go like this: Darwinist unambiguously advances proposition X. IDer quotes the Darwinist and demonstrates that proposition X is an error. Read More ›

Saturday Fun: Adapa’s DDS on Display

Sometimes an example of Darwinist Derangement Syndrome (see UD’s glossary) is just too delicious to allow it to languish deep in a comment thread.  Here’s an exchange between Adapa and WJM in the Way Forward thread: First, Adapa claims that science has “conclusively demonstrated” that unguided evolution can produce observed diversity of life: Adapa @99: . . . science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today . . . @ 587 William J Murray disagrees and says unless a P(T|H) calculation can be made for a naturally occurring biological phenomenon “evolution cannot be vetted as ‘unguided.’” Read More ›