Luskin: Something is specified if it matches an independent pattern. There is no special, independent pattern to the shape of Mount Rainier. Its complexity alone is not enough to infer design. It matches a pattern — the faces of four famous Presidents.
As Jeffrey Shallit claims? That is, does intelligent intervention increase information? Is that intervention detectable by science methods?
On the Design Disquisitions YouTube channel, I’ve posted a new video where I recommend several books of interest, specifically pro-ID literature. Most of the suggestions may be familiar to you, but hopefully there are a few that you’ve not read before. I also give a brief summary of the content of each book. I don’t Read More…
Specified complexity is what we should be looking for in signals from intelligent beings — orderly patterns that hold meanings not found in inanimate nature.
Move along, folks. No design to see here.
Put another way: What’s the difference between a bag of jigsaw puzzle pieces and a text message: “The city will get your car towed if you don’t move it within the next 8 minutes”?
We are told by many philosophers that life came to exist on Earth purely by chance. How likely is that, given the intricacy of the machinery that governs our bodies, such that someone needs to design AlphaFold to figure it out?
An essential part of the process of discovering the truth will be the disintegration ray gun… Read the fine print.
Miller: One of the central requirements of design arguments is to evaluate the probability of patterns emerging through undirected processes.
Cepelewicz: The very existence of organelles in these bacteria, coupled with intriguing parallels to the more familiar ones that characterize eukaryotes, has prompted scientists to revise how they think about the evolution of cellular complexity — all while offering new ways to probe the basic principles that underlie it.
The promised interview has arrived! Bob Murphy interviews Winston Ewert on various topics around Intelligent Design, including Winston’s latest paper on life’s dependency graph.
For years, Darwinists have howled about Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter.” It was unscientific, they claimed. It is purely subjective. Etc. Yet, thinking human beings understand statistics fairly well and they know when to look for an explanation when the odds become too one-sided. Here’s an example of a government intelligence guy explaining how a poker cheat Read More…
ID theory, he says, offers a way around false positives in interpretation of information.
Let’s read the Nature abstract: Nature (2019) Article | Published: 15 May 2019 Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome Julius Fredens, Kaihang Wang, Daniel de la Torre, Louise F. H. Funke, Wesley E. Robertson, Yonka Christova, Tiongsun Chia, Wolfgang H. Schmied, Daniel L. Dunkelmann, Václav Beránek, Chayasith Uttamapinant, Andres Gonzalez Llamazares, Thomas Read More…
Digging further into George Montañez’s new paper at BIO-Complexity, a lay-friendly version: Specified complexity allows us to measure how surprising random outcomes are, in reference to some probabilistic model. But there are other ways of measuring surprise. In Shannon’s celebrated information theory (Shannon 1948), improbability alone can be used to measure the surprise of observing Read More…