Intelligent Design

This exchange between lastyearon, KF and Eric Anderson is too delish to leave in a combox: LASTYEARON: What the ID proponents (specifically Eric Anderson and KD) are saying is that evolution isn’t science because it lacks sufficient detail at the molecular level. In order for them to accept that the eye evolved by accident (which is highly unlikely) you need to show exactly how it happened, molecule by molecule. However, personally I don’t even think that’s enough. We all know that organic molecules are extremely complex entities that are made of lots of atoms. And we also know that the atoms in those organic molecules are extremely complex themselves, and are made of lots of electrons, neutrons and protons. And Read More ›

Cf follow up on laws of thought including cause, here In our day, it is common to see the so-called Laws of Thought or First Principles of Right Reason challenged or dismissed. As a rule, design thinkers strongly tend to reject this common trend, including when it is claimed to be anchored in quantum theory. Going beyond, here at UD it is common to see design thinkers saying that rejection of the laws of thought is tantamount to rejection of rationality, and is a key source of endless going in evasive rhetorical circles and refusal to come to grips with the most patent facts; often bogging down attempted discussions of ID issues. The debate has hotted up over the past Read More ›

I once debated an evolution professor who explained that evolution has tremendous explanatory power. But what exactly does this mean, and is it a good thing? Everyone knows that evolution explains that the species evolved gradually, but for new forms appearing abruptly in the fossil record evolution explains that the species evolved rapidly. Likewise, evolution explains that similarities in species derive from a common ancestor, but for species that are too distant evolution explains that the similarities in the species arose independently. Or again, evolution explains that biological variation is random and not intelligent, but for variation that responds to environmental challenges evolution explains that it created a fantastic adaptive machine that creates such variation. It seems that evolution can Read More ›

It is commonly believed that Dr. Dan-Eric Nilsson and Dr. Susanne Pelger of Lund University in Sweden demonstrated in a scientific paper written back in 1994 that a fully-developed vertebrate eye could have developed from a simple light-sensitive spot by a process of unguided natural selection, in “less than 364,000 years.” That, at any rate, is the popular myth. What’s the reality? Nilsson and Pelger certainly made a convincing case for gradualism in their paper, but they failed to bolster the case for Darwinism. Looking at the eye from a purely anatomical standpoint, they showed how a vertebrate eye could have developed from a patch of light-sensitive skin by the accumulation of numerous tiny modifications over the course of time Read More ›

In this post I predicted that history will not be kind to people like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins who insist that the fundamental questions in biology have been settled and all that is left is to fill in the holes. A commenter going by “thaumaturge” demurred, insisting that Coyne and Dawkins have never said this. The other commenters started posting direct quotes demonstrating that Coyne and Dawkins believe that evolution is a “fact” as well proven as the fact that the earth goes around the sun. Not good enough, thaumaturge insisted. More quotes showing the same thing were posted. Still not good enough according to thaumaturge. I am seeing this tactic more and more in our debates with the Read More ›

Sophistry: “n. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.” In a comment earlier today Kantian Naturalist stated: “The idea that the capacity to engage in reasoned discourse depends upon a commitment to ‘the rules of right reason’ is silly (at best). For one thing, there are no such rules.” KN, I am calling you out on your sophistry.  I challenge you to answer the following three simple true/false questions. For any proposition A: 1: A=A. True or False. 2: “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. True or False. 3: “A is B” and “A is not B” are jointly exhaustive. True or False. KN knows as well as anyone that the Read More ›

Thanks to the indefatigable BA77,  we have the new (March 1, 2013) XVIVO animation on xRNA: Notice, the recurrent cybernetic themes and discussions. Also, am I the only one who sees a space-ships and planets metaphor there? Thoughts welcome. END

Physics professor Philipp von Jolly advised a young Max Planck not to go into physics, because “in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes.” With the clarity of hindsight we might say, “what a maroon.”  Standing on the cusp of a century in which the world of physics would be turned on its head – led by the very man to whom he was speaking – von Jolly thought everything important had already been discovered. Planck’s discoveries in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theories of space and time were literally unimaginable to a man like von Jolly.  His “few holes” were the known unknowns of classical physics.  He had no idea Read More ›

When I posted my Heresy Against the Church of Darwin Must be Stamped Out!, I had no idea that this magazine cover would come out the following week.

Earlier today, I decided to check back at TSZ, to see if they have recovered from the recent regrettable hack attack. They are back up, at least in part. The following however, caught my eye: Intelligent design proponents make a negative argument for design.  According to them, the complexity and diversity of life cannot be accounted for by unguided evolution (henceforth referred to simply as ‘evolution’) or any other mindless natural process.  If it can’t be accounted for by evolution, they say, then we must invoke design . . . . What mysterious barrier do IDers think prevents microevolutionary change from accumulating until it becomes macroevolution?  It’s the deep blue sea, metaphorically speaking.  IDers contend that life occupies ‘islands of Read More ›

In the movie Annie Hall Woody Allen is trapped in a long theater line right in front of a rather loud-mouthed fellow. What’s worse, the fellow is pompously expounding on the work of Marshall McLuhan even though he’s all wrong. Allen finally runs out of patience but the fellow won’t back down. So amazingly Allen produces Mr. McLuhan himself, right then and there, who authoritatively informs the fellow of his ignorance (click to view the video). That funny scene sometimes plays out in evolution discussions for there are a great many evolution experts who, like Mr. McLuhan, may drop in at any moment and smash the critic. But the denouement is not always quite as Allen scripted it.  Read more

Most people are aware that Sir Isaac Newton believed in God. But it may come as a surprise to many readers to learn that he was also an Intelligent Design advocate. What prompted me to write this post was a recent comment by Genomicus that while Newton’s remarks on the Bible were interesting, they were “irrelevant to the hypothesis that life was engineered by some intelligence(s).” Genomicus will be interested to know that Newton explicitly argued that all of the various kinds of living things in Nature were personally designed by God. For those wanting to know more about Newton’s views on God and science, I would heartily recommend an essay by Stephen Snobelen, a professor of the history of Read More ›

Two years ago I asked this question:  How Can We Know One Belief Selected for By Evolution is Superior to Another? I illustrated the conundrum faced by the evolutionary materialist (EM) with this little back and forth: Theist: You say there is no God. EM: Yes. Theist: Yet belief in God among many (if not most) humans persists. EM: I cannot deny that. Theist: How do you explain that? EM: Religious belief is an evolutionary adaption. Theist: But you say religious belief is false. EM: That’s correct. Theist: Let me get this straight. According to you, religious belief has at least two characteristics: (1) it is false; and (2) evolution selected for it. EM [looking a little pale now, because Read More ›

The genetic code was discovered about fifty years ago and it has been a challenge for evolution ever since. As we sawlast time it provides an example of evolution’s metaphysical reasoning. As Wikipedia puts it, “the genetic code used by all known forms of life is nearly universal with few minor variations. This suggests that a single evolutionary history underlies the origin of the genetic code.” That, of course, is false—at least from a scientific perspective. In science we may say hypothesis H predicts observation O, but not the reverse. O does not imply H. It doesn’t even suggest H. It merely doesn’t falsify H. To say anything more requires additional premises and, in this case, that is where the metaphysics comes into Read More ›