Intelligent Design

Yesterday, in his “Critics agree with Dembski” post, Eric Holloway raised the issue of a fallacy that is so significant in the design theory context that it deserves its own name: The Fallacy of Creeping Omniscience.

He provided a description that with some minor adjustments, can serve as a working definition:

It is commonly noted that when smart or educated or famous, or wealthy or powerful people or the like achieve expertise or noted success in a certain area, they suddenly think they are experts in many others, even when lacking the necessary knowledge. When listening to smart or educated or famous, or wealthy or powerful people, it is always wise to take this into consideration, and listen most closely to their opinions about what they’re carefully studied. (But, even on those topics where they have genuine expertise, we should note that no expert is better than his or her facts, assumptions and reasoning.)

It is always helpful to give a key example or two, and the now notorious NYRB 1997 clip from Professor Richard Lewontin makes a very good first example: Read More ›

I recently published an article on Uncommon Descent on the value of probabilistic arguments in the evolution debate. Mathematician and ScienceBlogs contributor Jason Rosenhouse has since responded with a rebuttal on his blog. Here, I offer a brief response. Rosenhouse writes, Jonathan M. is completely confused about what the issue is. Pigliucci certainly never claimed that biologists are not interested in evaluating probabilistic feasibility (whatever that even means). He said simply that evolutionary biologists do not assign probabilities to specific events in the way that ID folks would like. For example, Jonathan M. points to a calculation in which biologist Sean Carroll estimated the probability of obtaining the same mutation four times independently in different orders of birds. In such Read More ›

I think that a lot of Darwinists are confused as to why the public has a lot to say about origins issues. After all, the public doesn’t tend to have a lot to say about computer science topics, physics topics, or mathematics topics. The average person on the street probably doesn’t have a strong opinion on whether or not hypercomputing is a real possibility or the true nature of gravity. But they probably do have an opinion on Darwinism. This has left a great many academics puzzled.
Read More ›

Darwinian “theory” has been artificially and unjustifiably elevated into the domain of legitimate, rigorous science. It is nothing of the sort. It is increasingly nonsensical speculation based on a conclusion reached in advance. Yes, living things have evolved. They share many characteristics. Natural selection is a fact. Random mutations can do some things. Beyond that, Darwinian theory is utterly vacuous, and explains nothing of any ultimate significance. Boiled down to its essentials, Darwinian theory is a bizarre cult-like belief that random events can produce the antithesis of randomness. In no other area of science would such obvious nonsense be accepted without scrutiny or dissent. One can learn the essentials of Darwinian theory and its claims in a few hours. It’s Read More ›

As many UD readers know, I was once a Richard Dawkins-style atheist. I was not just an ordinary, garden-variety atheist, but a really obnoxious, nasty, self-aggrandizing, pathetically prideful atheist like Dawkins. I prided myself in using my intellectual capacities in an attempt to destroy any belief that materialism cannot explain everything. What a fool I was. The story of my conversion is available, but the most salient point concerning ID is that my interest and expertise in basic science, engineering, and especially highly sophisticated computational algorithms, led me to recognize the inherent design in living systems and the transparent desperation of ID opponents to explain away the obvious. A major influence in my journey over the years has been Dennis Read More ›