Intelligent Design

In his latest post on Uncommon Descent, “Evolution” is a Political Controversy? (Or, am I Living in an Alternate Multiverse?), Gil Dodgen shot down claims by author Alan Rogers that the controversy over the theory of evolution is a political controversy.

It’s not a political controversy. It is:

1) An evidential controversy (for example, the fossil record, especially the Cambrian explosion).

2) A logical and computational controversy (the insufficiency of random errors producing highly complex, functionally integrated, self-correcting computer code).

3) A mathematical controversy (clearly insufficient probabilistic resources for anything but the most trivial changes based on Darwinian mechanisms).

Politics have nothing to do with any of this. It’s just basic reason, logic, and evidence.

Yesterday, I came across the following response by a skeptic who wasn’t terribly impressed:

1. The Cambrian “explosion” took many millions of years. It was originally called an “explosion” because research and information about it were limited at that time and it appeared that many species arose very quickly (geologically speaking). It is now usually called the Cambrian radiation.

2. Biological entities are not computers and do not contain “computer code”.

3. The probabilistic resources crap (sic) is based on made up numbers that mean absolutely nothing.

My message to the Skeptic (that’s what I’ll call him for the rest of this post) can be summed up in one sentence: you’ve got a lot of reading to do. Where to begin? Let’s address one point at a time.

Read More ›

In June we welcomed Shasta Daisy, our new goldendoodle, to our household.  I love goldendoodles.  They are beautiful and smart and full of energy.  Lots of energy.  Did I mention she is energetic?  Watching Shasta play I kept thinking about Alan Greenspan’s famous phrase, “irrational exuberance.”  After a few weeks my wife and I were worn down to a nub, so we began casting about for ways to curb or at least channel Shasta’s enthusiasm.  We rejected doggy downers and decided to enroll her in puppy school instead.

On the first day of class we showed up at the appointed time, paid the tuition, and proceeded to the training area, where Shasta and four other dogs barked, wagged and yanked on their leashes as they got to know each other.  Shasta, at least, was having a grand time, but when the trainer finally arrived I immediately began to reevaluate the wisdom of our choice, because almost the first thing out of his mouth was “there are no right or wrong answers here.”  (Am I the only one who loathes that phrase with the burning intensity of a thousand suns?)  When he said this, many questions began to run through my head such as:  “Have we enrolled Shasta in a post-modern puppy class?” Read More ›

Here we read: Alan Rogers addresses the political controversy over the theory of evolution… The comment about “a political controversy” inspired the following. First of all, the theory of evolution (whatever that means) is so plastic, so poorly defined, and so perfectly designed to be amenable to any subjective or a priori interpretation that it is essentially vacuous as a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory. It is also cleverly designed to be impervious to negation or even challenge, due to its infinite logical and evidential plasticity. It’s not a political controversy. It is: 1) An evidential controversy (for example, the fossil record, especially the Cambrian explosion). 2) A logical and computational controversy (the insufficiency of random errors producing highly Read More ›

Here. Alan R. Rogers tells us in The Evidence for Evolution

According to polling data, most Americans doubt that evolution is a real phenomenon. And it’s no wonder that so many are skeptical: many of today’s biology courses and textbooks dwell on the mechanisms of evolution—natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow—but say little about the evidence that evolution happens at all. How do we know that species change? Has there really been enough time for evolution to operate?

That Rogers merely means an exploded Darwinism is evident from one of the endorsements: Read More ›

Here.

Atheist neuroscientist Raymond Tallis assails the cult of the neuron. A non-materialist psychiatrist comments, Read More ›

In “Earth Uniqueness Up; SETI Down” (Creation-Evolution Headlines, July 29, 2011), we learn:

Some astronomers are seriously considering that life might be rare or unique on our rare (or unique) planet. If so, hopes for finding sentient aliens on the celestial radio dial drop accordingly. The 50th anniversary of the first SETI search came, unfortunately for search enthusiasts, at a time when funding is harder to get.

New Scientist has been running a series called “Existence” for the purpose of examining big questions about the origin of the universe, life, and consciousness. Most of the articles try to give atheist answers to arguments of intelligent design.

Ah, someone noticed. Read More ›