Intelligent Design

. . . and blatant denial is not an appropriate response to the reality of and/or easily known facts concerning functionally specific complex organisation and /or associated information, FSCO/I: Facts are stubborn things, but people can be more stubborn than that. (That is, there are two types of ignorance, I: simple ignorance because one does not know the facts and/or may not understand them, but also II: ideological closed-mindedness due to being controlled by mind-closing agendas hostile to, selectively hyperskeptical towards and dismissive or suppressive of inconvenient facts, . . . such as those we just saw regarding FSCO/I.) Why am I saying this? Poster-boy no 1, rich @ 252  in the UD no bomb thread: [KF:] “Your comment no Read More ›

The highly esteemed Franklin M. Harold is the author of a newly-published book: In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life’s Building Blocks, University of Chicago Press (2014). According to the publisher, this book investigates the full scope of cellular history. The content is broad and includes the relationship between cells and genes; the status of the universal tree of life with its three stems and viral outliers; and the controversies surrounding the last universal common ancestor. Extensive discussion is provided of the evolution of cellular organization and the fossil evidence for the earliest life on earth. The publisher explains: “In Search of Cell History shows us just how far we have come in understanding cell evolution—and the evolution Read More ›

There is a current wave of attempts in an around UD to cloud, strawmannise, obfuscate, twist into pretzels and dismiss the observed (and measurable) phenomenon, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I. Accordingly, let us first note the root of the concept in the work of leading OOL — origin of life — researchers in the 1970’s: ORGEL, 1973:  . . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The Read More ›

In a previous post two years ago, entitled, H. L. Mencken: Is this your hero, New Atheists?, I accused H. L. Mencken (pictured left) of lying and character assassination, in his reporting on the 1925 Scopes trial. Specifically, I charged that Mencken knowingly and deliberately made false statements about William Jennings Bryan (pictured right), a three-time Democratic Presidential candidate and eloquent orator, whose passionate opposition to Darwinism led him to volunteer his services an assistant prosecutor during the Scopes trial. To accuse a highly respected author such as Mencken of slander is a very serious matter, and in today’s post and an upcoming post, I’m going to substantiate this charge. Mencken not only slandered Bryan; he also slandered the people Read More ›

I have been studying the origins issue for 22 years, and I have been debating the origins issue with literally hundreds of Darwinists for a decade. Here’s a brief report: I have to admit that when I first started debating the origins issue I did so with some trepidation. After all, there are a lot of highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professionals who say they believe the Darwinian narrative. To tell the truth, when I first started debating origins, I assumed not only that there was a very good chance that I was on the wrong side of the debate, but also that one or more of those highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professionals would come along and drop a science bomb Read More ›

Sorry TJ, then you will never be in good standing in the Darwinian cool kids club. All that follows is from tjguy’s comment to my prior post: Tin says: Just because something can be made by man does not mean that all occurrences in nature must have an intelligent origin. As Barry says, sure, that is a good point. But likewise, it doesn’t mean that it does NOT have an intelligent origin in nature either. And another huge difference between making diamonds and making DNA code is that we basically understand how diamonds are made. There is little dispute about this. The natural processes are fairly well understood and in fact, have been tested. And we actually copy the natural Read More ›

tintinnid attempts to undermine the design inference by noting: Just because something can be made by man does not mean that all occurrences in nature must have an intelligent origin. Agreed. You have been one of our most vocal critics in recent weeks. But that you would write this statement indicates you have a seriously flawed understanding of the ID project. I recommend that before you spend further hours on this website criticizing ID, that perhaps you might try to understand it first. Then, when you go to criticize it, you will be actually criticizing ID, and not some distorted caricature of ID you’ve made up. You see, Tin, it does no good to criticize a distorted caricature of ID. Read More ›