Intelligent Design

Previously [1], I argued that not only may a universe with infinite probabilistic resources undermine ID, it will definitely undermines science. Science operates by fitting models to data using statistical hypothesis testing with an assumption of regularity between the past, present, and future. However, given the possible permutations of physical histories, the majority are mostly random. Thus, a priori, the most rational position is that all detection of order cannot imply anything beyond the bare detection, and most certainly implies nothing about continued order in the future or that order existed in the past.

Furthermore, since such detections of order encompass any observations we may make, we have no other means of determining a posteriori whether science’s assumption of regularity is valid to any degree whatsoever. And, as the probabilistic resources increase the problem only gets worse. This is the mathematical basis for Hume’s problem of induction. Fortunately, ID provides a way out of this conundrum. Read More ›

Look at the  stuff about our list founder Bill Dembski:  Here. You can vote on this page Trustworthy? Or [crap][filth][garbage/[author knows nothing of consequence] I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional) Submit ratings

After analysing the traits present in Xiaotingia and its relations, Xu and his colleagues are suggesting that the creatures bear more resemblance to the dinosaurs Velociraptor and Microraptor than to early birds, and so belong in the dinosaur group Deinonychosauria rather than in the bird group, Avialae. Many features led the team to this decision, but the most immediately noticeable are that Xiaotingia, Archaeopteryx and Anchiornis have shallow snouts and expanded regions behind their eye sockets. Microraptor has similar traits, but the early birds in Avialae have very different skulls.

But what if they find a fossil that looks like those ones, but has a bird-like skull? Can they say why they are sure they won’t? Is that a prediction? Read More ›

I’m not quite sure who Michael Denton is. I’ve read his two books, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature’s Destiny. It was Crisis that first inspired me to exclaim to myself, How could you have been so stupid as to have been duped into believing this transparent Darwinian-gradualism-and-random-mutation-natural-selection nonsense? In Destiny he presents some remarkable insights, not just about the fine tuning of the laws of physics, but about the remarkably fine-tuned properties of water, the carbon atom, light, and much more, for the eventual appearance of living systems. For Denton’s comments about stardust see here. For his comments on mathematics see here. So far, ID theory has addressed two primary domains: cosmology and biology. However, I believe that Read More ›

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution states that the species arose from earlier species. Slight changes accumulating over long time periods resulted in one species giving rise to a new species, over and over.  Read more

In “Fundamentalist Christian or Deranged Social Darwinist?” (Evolution News & Views, July 27, 2011), political scientist John G. West tells us that the guy didn’t want Christians (for example) involved in public policy:

Breivik harbors a special concern that Christians not be able to influence issues related to science and public policy “in any way.”

Why? Read More ›

Here: Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals. “Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas” July 25, 2011 Skepticism is warranted. Thoughts?

You’ve seen the scrub-yer-rep ads here. One enynterprising group decided to test it. Follow UD News at Twitter! PS: People have written to UD News, asking to have poorly thought-out posts removed. We do it, in principle, but we don’t have a really big admin staff. We spent the resources on a troll monitor instead, for the protection of immature young persons who may happen to do that.

Multiverses come in many varieties. In this post, I won’t be talking about unrestricted multiverses, in which anything that can possibly happen, actually happens in some universe. Instead, I’ll be talking about the more modest claim that our universe is just one of a vast number of universes with varying physical constants and different laws of nature, and that there is something called a “multiverse-generator” which churns out baby universes. In an influential essay entitled, The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe (in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, 2009, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.), Dr. Robin Collins argues that a “multiverse-generator” doesn’t eliminate the need for fine-tuning. The analogy he uses is that of a bread machine, which must have the right structure, programs, and ingredients (flour, water, yeast, and gluten) in order to produce decent loaves of bread. Similarly, the problem with a “multiverse-generator”, whether of the inflationary variety or some other type, is that the laws of the multiverse generator must be just right – i.e. fine-tuned – in order for it to (occasionally) produce universes whose constants and initial conditions permit the subsequent emergence of life. Thus invoking some sort of multiverse generator to explain the fine-tuning of our universe merely pushes the fine-tuning up one level: it doesn’t make it go away.

As Dr. Collins puts it (emphases below are mine):
Read More ›

Stephen B writes that ‘Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based.’ Revealed Theology, Natural Theology, and the Darwinist Concoction of “ID/Creationism.” However, comments are closed [N.B. it is now working and open so you can post your comments at the above link if you wish] so I wanted to respond by posting a new thread if that is OK. There is a difference between creationism and ID, I agree, but I don’t think it is along the lines of evidence vs presuppositions a priori vs a posteriori. Both must start with presuppositions; creationism starts from Scripture and natural evidence and is closer to the two book approach of Francis Bacon, ID tends to be a one book approach, but I would argue Read More ›