Intelligent Design

One of the saddest aspects of the debates over the design inference on empirically reliable signs such as FSCO/I, is the way evolutionary materialist objectors and fellow travellers routinely insist on distorting the ID view, even after many corrections. (Kindly, note the weak argument correctives, accessible under the UD Resources Tab, which address many of these.) Indeed, the introduction to the just liked WACs is forced to remark: . . . many critics mistakenly insist that ID, in spite of its well-defined purpose, its supporting evidence, and its mathematically precise paradigms, is not really a valid scientific theory. All too often, they make this charge on the basis of the scientists’ perceived motives. We have noticed that some of these Read More ›

In response to this post rich says: It’s a bit like looking at a clock for a tenth of a second and lamenting you’ve witnessed no hours. Did you expect to? To which WJM responds: what I’m lamenting is not that we do not see hours pass on the clock, but rather, I’m lamenting the faith-based, infinite credulity and certitude expressed by those that have looked at “the clock” for a 10th of a second (as you say) and have extrapolated that into virtual certainty that “the clock”, over time, came into being by chance and natural forces and through those processes developed all the different kinds of functional, accurate time pieces found on Earth. Even when there is no Read More ›

Are ID advocates guilty of selective hyperskepticism? Professor Larry Moran evidently thinks we are. In a recent post, he writes: Let’s take the formation of bacterial flagella as a good illustration of how they use selective hyperskepticism. They begin with the unshakeable assumption that gods exist, that that they must have created life. They then find an example of something complex where the exact evolutionary pathway hasn’t been worked out and declare that the gods made it. They refuse to answer any questions about how, when, where, and why and they refuse to present any evidence that gods did it. When evolutionary biologists present some evidence that bacterial flagella could have arisen by evolution the creationists turn into selective hyperskepticists Read More ›

From our own WJM: What is so frustrating/baffling at times is the ongoing use of terminology by materialists to deny/obfuscate what are relatively simple, straightforward observations – as if the example of the sun seemingly moving through the sky serves as a universal principle of hyperskeptical fallibility through which every statement/observation can be summarily ignored/dismissed. If one cannot admit there is a significant difference between a sandcastle and a sandpile that is not merely “incidental”, what hope is there for meaningful debate about anything? It’s useful to recognize that such hyperskepticism is only applied one way – it is never applied to their own materialist or atheist ideology, its assumptions, “truths”, faith, or line of logic. Apparently, logic is perfectly Read More ›

Lego Pile A: Lego “Pile” B: What’s the difference, and why is it there? What does this tell us about functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (FSCO/I), why? So, bearing in mind this needle in haystack search challenge: . . . also, the design inference process flowchart: . . . and the use of coded paper tapes in older computers and Numerically Controlled machines: . . . what can and should we infer concerning the FSCO/I involved in the protein synthesis process (including the coded mRNA tape)? What, then, does this tell us about the causal factors credibly involved in the origin of cell based life crucially dependent on protein synthesis for it to carry out its functions? Why? Read More ›

Today UD editors completely deleted both their “banned” list and their “comment moderation” list. Anyone in the world with access to the internet is currently free to comment on the site. I (i.e., Barry Arrington) am almost certainly going to regret this decision and sooner rather than later. There were hundreds of trolls trapped in the “banned” and “moderation” queues. Frankly, images of this scene from Ghostbusters went through my mind as a pressed the “release” button. Let’s hope it does not come to that.

The word “tangent” when used in a non-mathematical context means: “diverging from an original purpose or course.” Darwinians love to try to derail debates by latching onto irrelevancies in order to push the discussion away from the issue under review. This is especially true when they are unable to counter a proposition. Rather than admit defeat, they say “let’s talk about something else!” Here are a couple of examples. In this post I put up a string of letters that resulted from my haphazard banging on my keyboard. I then compared that string to the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy. The obvious purpose of the post is to demonstrate that there is a clearly perceived difference between a more Read More ›

In the Denying the truth is not the same as not knowing it thread, we see the Darwinist tendency to distort or dismiss self-evident truth (and, behind this, to deny first principles of right reason) in action. Another noteworthy DDD, no 14 by count so far. This starts in the very first comment: TT, 1: Barry, you wield self-evident truths as if they were weapons. Declaring that something is a self-evident truth does not make it so. Is it a self-evident truth that the sparkling point of light in the night sky is a star? 99% of the time (or more, I don’t really know), this extrapolation may be correct. Except when it is a plant or a galaxy. In Read More ›

Highlighting an exchange in a prior post: Phinehas As a result of your [i.e., ES’s] metaphysics, you are unable to describe in any meaningful way the difference between a mound of dirt and a sand castle. Silver Asiatic It’s amazing how difficult this concept is for some people. Well, Silver, yes and no. No, in the sense that it is no more difficult for them to apprehend a self-evident truth than anyone else. That is what it means for the truth to be “self-evident.” Don’t let them fool you into believing they genuinely do not perceive the self-evident. They do. Yes, in the sense that as Phinehas has noted, ES’s prior metaphysical commitments force him to deny self-evident truths. The Read More ›

StephenB takes down a materialist in five words: Feser: Take a few bits of metal, work them into various shapes, and attach them to a piece of wood. Voila! A mousetrap. Attach? Voila? There are millions of ways to attach pieces of metal to wood. Only one of those combinations will trap a mouse. The trick is to arrange those pieces so that they will function as a mousetrap. Or so we call it. But objectively, apart from human interests, the object is “nothing but” a collection of wood and metal parts. Tell that to the mouse . . . Oh my sides . . . gasp . . .