worldview

It has become apparent that a major objection by EL et al, is that ” . . . What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer” — clearly implying God as Designer/ Creator. This objection is closely backed by the now far too common atheistical/ secularist notion that belief in God (especially the God of the Bible) is utterly irrational and therefore a menace to the community. As we continue this for record* response series — 1st, 2nd, so far . . .  —  we need to address this objection. Not, because design theory is “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo” [a canard that should long since have been apologised for by those Read More ›

In a current UD thread, Mung clips and comments: >> OT: Over at TSZ, fossils of reason occasionally appear, quite by accident. Elizabeth Liddle: I do not think the ID case holds up. I think it is undermined by any evidence for the putative designer – no hypothesis about what the designer was trying to do, how she was doing it, what her capacities were, etc. Mung: The ID case does not hold up because it is undermined by any evidence for the designer. Classic.>> I added: >> identification of an empirically detectable, reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration — thus of a design process — is a strong sign of a designer back of that process. Further, designs typically Read More ›

I had hoped that my in-thread response to the latest wave of outing and smear tactics at UD and elsewhere coming from denizens of the penumbra of attack sites surrounding UD would be enough; but based on further enabling behaviour, I find it necessary to headline for reference as follows: _______________ >> . . . a few words need to be said after taking time to ponder how to speak to truly difficult to address issues without further giving currency to slander, outing and implicitly menacing intimidation. As in: we know you, where you are, those you care for, their homes or places of business etc. including things not readily found on the Internet that suggest on the ground casing of Read More ›

I had hoped to be able to let matters rest here, but it now first seems I need to post Cicero’s warning in the opening words of his On Invention: ____________________ >> I HAVE often and deeply resolved this question in my mind, whether fluency of language has been beneficial or injurious to men and to cities, with reference to the cultivation of the highest order of eloquence. For when I consider the disasters of our own republic, and when I call to mind also the ancient calamities of the most important states, I see that it is by no means the most insignificant portion of their distresses which has originated from the conduct of the most eloquent men. But, Read More ›

In recent days the issue of the want of rational coherence of evolutionary materialist scientism has become a major focus at UD. For cause. In the most recent thread on it, BA says in the OP: I had an epiphany today. I think, after all this time, I finally get it . . . . Eigenstate intends for us to believe that intentional states do not exist. Eigenstate desires for us to believe that desires do not exist. Eigenstate believes (and asks us to believe) that beliefs do not exist. Eigenstate wants us to know that the word “I” in the sentence he just wrote (i.e. “I encourage any and all . . .”) maps to an illusion – i.e., Read More ›

In the still active discussion thread on failure of compensation arguments, long term maverick ID (and, I think, still YEC-sympathetic) supporter SalC comments: SalC, 570:    . . .  I’ve argued against using information theory type arguments in defense of ID, it adds way too much confusion. Basic probability will do the job, and basic probability is clear and unassailable. The mutliplicities of interest to ID proponents don’t vary with temperature, whereas the multiplicities from a thermodynamic perspective change with temperature. I find that very problematic for invoking 2LOT in defense of ID. Algorithmically controlled metabolisms (such as realized in life) are low multiplicity constructs as a matter of principle. They are high in information content. But why add more jargon Read More ›

In a recent UD thread on evidence vs selectively hyperskeptical dismissal, AS has been challenging that “religious” belief [= theism as worldview, worked into way of life]  is ill founded, lacks evidence beyond testimonials, and the like. (Such is not new, already at UD I have had occasion to rebut his blanket dismissals of religious “dogma.”) At 64, he sums up his perspective particularly succinctly: AS, 64: I think religions have an emotional appeal that some people are more susceptible to than others. For those that succumb to that emotional need, evidence is superfluous. Those that lack that need aren’t swayed by testimony. Whether they might be impressed by evidence other than testimony is yet to be tested. This is Read More ›

It seems that another response to VS needs to be headlined, the second within a few days. We are seeing here the sort of breakdown of reasoning that seems to be implicit in making ever more determined objections to the design inference on FSCO/I as sign. While we are at it, let’s take advantage of media features of an OP: _______________ >> This, from 74 above, is a New-Speak classic: Not unless one tries to sneak in teleology into the word ” directed” , I think Delicate Arch is a non intelligent controlled/ directed configuration.Natural forces cause the pattern of elements , the design.Since ID is agnostic on the mechanism of design,it cannot say where the Fsco/I it detects came Read More ›

Over the past day or so, following a News post, the self referential incoherences of evolutionary materialism have been coming under the microscope here at UD. In the course of such, the indefatigable (but often “misunderestimated”) BA77 has again struck gold. As in per famed eccentric and insightful mystic, William Blake, Tiger, tiger, burning bright . . . And, how could we honour BA77 without a vid? So . . [youtube uuiusIIOqY4] (While we are at it, Eye of the Tiger, vid + lyrics.) Well worth headlining: _______________ BA77: >>I like the nuance that Dr. Pearcey draws out. It is not only that, under materialistic premises, our perceptions may be false, it is also that, under materialistic premises, free will, Read More ›

CHartsil has now earned UD objector poster-child status, regarding a talking point he used to try to divert a News thread: If ID is science, then put it through the scientific method. You don’t just get to say it’s a valid alternative when evolution has been put through the wringer and ID proponents have failed to produce so much as a single mechanism of design. Let’s take this in steps of thought: >> If ID is science, then put it through the scientific method.>> 1 –> This raises the issue as to what science properly understood is, and what its methods are. As there has been a recent agenda to redefine science as applied materialism dressed up in a lab coat, Read More ›

Video, well worth watching: [youtube hdNNNJMZJ_c] (–> also cf the audio by John Lennox here. The Worldviews 101 here on may also be of help.) Full presentation (v. fat download). PDF, with notes. Abstract: The New Atheism claims being a scientist and a Christian is like being a vegan butcher. But both today and in history, many scientists, Mathematicians and engineers are motivated in their work by the uncovering of precise orderliness, underlying simplicity, and inherent beauty of God’s creations. Many not only study the creation., but have pursued the identity of the creator and have found Him in the foundational tenets of Christianity. Some of these scientists are: o Isaac Newton – the father of classical physics and co-creator Read More ›

Here: [youtube -bYAQ-ZZtEU] And while one may have reservations or quibbles about particular cases, the overall point is well taken. In her article on a “top ten” list of astro-turfers, she comments, soberingly: What’s most successful when it appears to be something it’s not? Astroturf. As in fake grassroots. The many ways that corporations, special interests and political interests of all stripes exploit media and the Internet to perpetuate astroturf is ever-expanding. Surreptitious astroturf methods are now more important to these interests than traditional lobbying of Congress. There’s an entire PR industry built around it in Washington . . . . Astroturfers often disguise themselves and publish blogs, write letters to the editor, produce ads, start non-profits, establish Facebook and Read More ›

NB: RDM paper, here In the current VJT discussion thread on What Evidence is, RD Miksa asks a telling question (slightly adjusted for readability) of naturalistic hyperskeptics: RDM, 25:  . . . the ironic thing to note in terms of comments from the anti-super-naturalist side is how they fail to realize that their very own arguments undermine their own naturalistic position. Indeed, note their use of the poorly-formulated but often used mantra “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Note how this mantra is used to claim–in the context of this discussion–how it is apparently more rational to believe that hundreds of witnesses hallucinated or colluded or lied rather than believe that a man levitated. But the problem is, such an argument Read More ›

Long-time visitors or regulars at UD will know that (along with StephenB who drew the significance to my attention . . . ) I champion the idea of self-evident, plumb-line first principles of right reason: That is, if we contemplate say a bright red ball on a table, we see a world-partition: W = { A | ~A } . . . which leads to manifesting the classic laws of identity [A is A not non-A], non contradiction [(A AND ~A) = 0] , and excluded middle . . . this, best expressed as (A X-OR ~A) = 1. Likewise, I have argued for a weak-form principle of sufficient reason. Contemplating that ball on the table, it is natural to Read More ›

Over the past few months, I noticed objectors to design theory dismissing or studiously ignoring a simple — much simpler than a clock — macroscopic example of Functionally Specific, Complex Organisation and/or associated Information (FSCO/I) and its empirically observed source, the ABU-Garcia Ambassadeur 6500 C3 fishing reel: Yes, FSCO/I is real, and has a known cause. {Added, Feb 6} It seems a few other clearly paradigmatic cases will help rivet the point, such as the organisation of a petroleum refinery: . . . or the wireframe view of a rifle ‘scope (which itself has many carefully arranged components): . . . or a calculator circuit: . . . or the wireframe for a gear tooth (showing how complex and exactingly Read More ›