Intelligent Design
“Science will know the answer someday” is actually worse than an IOU dated infinity
New intelligent design-friendly Facebook page operated by agnostics focuses on the science
Somewhat Off Topic: Need Freelance Writer for Higher-Ed Topics
Hi UncommonDescent Readers: I have a request. I need one or more freelance writers to work for pay on short research articles (ca. 1000 to 3000 words) related to higher-ed. Some of this work will touch on ID but most will not. Contact me at the email address on the homepage of www.designinference.com to learn more. –Bill D.
An Exchange With FG
In response to my last post here, Faded Glory writes: “But Barry, the way the design inference is formulated, it is not limited to a particular example like the one you present here. It is presented as a very general rule, as per your earlier post.” This statement is simply false. ID never asks “What is the source of all design?” It asks, “Is this particular thing designed?” And it answers this question by determining whether that particular thing exhibits complex specified information (or irreducible complexity, which is a subset of CSI). Faded Glory writes: “The moment someone uses the inference, in a non-controversial, way like your concrete example, anyone is warranted use exactly the same inference on any other Read More ›
How the scientific method, as currently practised, protects weak or bad theories
“Who designed the designer” vs. a burning matchstick
In the current “who designed the designer” rebuttal thread, NR has posted an objection that inadvertently exposes the core errors of this objection by Dawkins. While I responded in that thread, I think the issue is sufficiently material to also be posted in its own right.
So, pardon the following:
______________
NR, 12: >> The question “Who designed the designer” is intended as a rhetorical question. An actual answer is not expected.
The purpose of raising that question is to show that the argument “It is complex, therefore it must have been designed” will lead to an infinite regression.
I don’t see that your “demolition” has done anything to avoid that infinite regression problem.>>
KF, 27 – 28 as adjusted: >> NR thanks for your inadvertent rhetorical favour. Read More ›
Why morality cannot be 100% natural: A Response to Professor Coyne
The “Who Designed the Designer” Argument Demolished in Three Easy Steps
New poisonous mammal? Better read the fine print
Momentous event: Darwinist explanation of human generosity
To Save Time Barry Argues Both Sides
In comment [25] to my last post , The ID hypothesis, Elizabeth Liddle asks about information. I think I’ve been at this long enough to predict how an exchange between me and Elizabeth would go. Barry’s Point 1: Let’s take the information in your comment [25]. I am sure you will agree your comment contains specified complex information. Indeed, your one little comment contains more specified complex information than we could reasonably attribute to chance and necessity working from the beginning of the universe to this moment. Barry’s Point 2: I am sure you will agree that the cells in your body contain more complex specified information than your comment by several orders of magnitude. Barry’s Question to Elizabeth: If Read More ›
In case you wondered what you are buying when you buy the Darwinist worldview
The ID Hypothesis
“Romulans” presence suggested by microwave background
The idea that it may be possible to penetrate the “Romulan invisibility cloak” has received a boost. Studies of the low-temperature glow left from the Big Bang suggest that several of these “invisibility cloaks” may have left marks on our sky. This “Romulan presence” idea is popular in modern physics, but experimental tests have been hard to come by. The preliminary work, to be published in Unphysical Review D, will be firmed up using data from the Planck telescope. For now, the team has worked with seven years’ worth of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, which measures in minute detail the cosmic microwave background (CMB) – the faint glow left from our Universe’s formation. ‘Mind-blowing’ The theory that Read More ›