Or does the observed biochemical complexity imply design?
Dr. Granville Sewell finds: Intelligent design theories gaining steam in scientific circles
“The debut at #7 on the New York Times best seller list last July of Stephen Meyer’s new book Darwin’s Doubt is evidence that the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) continues to gain momentum. . . .
Pages: 1 2
Would the concepts of ergonomics and logistics be products of unintelligent forces, I wonder? Matter at its most wily?
————————-
Alex
On logistics, can “unintelligent forces” (stochastic 4 laws) do better on the traveling salesman’s problem than random chance? For quantitative details, See Dembski’s & Mark’s papers at the Evolutionary Information Lab.
as to the question “Can Chaos Create?” Or does the observed biochemical complexity imply design?.
To clarify what they mean by ‘they have been hobbled by vague definitions’.
Talbott humorously reflects on the awkward situation for Darwinists here:
In our effort to help alleviate Darwinists of this vague “Randomness of the gaps” definition they are stuck with, I think it will be helpful to point out that when computer programmers/engineers want to build a better random number generator, for any particular computer program they are building, then a better source of entropy is required to be found by them in order for them to achieve the increased randomness they desire for their program:
Also of note to defining terms more precisely:
It is also of interest to point how pervasive entropy is in its explanatory power for physical events that occur in this universe,,
But what is devastating for the atheist (or even for the Theistic Evolutionist) who wants ‘randomness of the gaps’ to be the source for all creativity in the universe, is that randomness, (i.e. the entropic processes of the universe), are now shown, scientifically, to be vastly more likely to destroy functional information within the cell rather than ever building it up’. Here are my notes along that line:
,,having a empirically demonstrated direct connection between entropy of the universe and the information inherent within a cell is extremely problematic for Darwinists because of the following principle,,,
and this ‘unsolved problems in biology’ is strongly supported empirically:
Thus, Darwinists are found to be postulating that the ‘random’ entropic events of the universe, which are found to be consistently destroying information in the cell, are instead what are creating functional information/complexity in the cell.,,, It is the equivalent in science of someone (in this case a ‘consensus of scientists’) claiming that Gravity makes things fall up instead of down, and that is not overstating the bizarre situation we find ourselves in in the least since Gravity ‘arises as an entropic force’.
In fact, the maximum source for entropy (randomness) in the universe is now known to be black holes,,,
It is also very interesting to note that Ludwig Boltzmann, an atheist, when he linked entropy and probability, did not, as Max Planck a Christian Theist points out in the following link, think to look for a constant for entropy:
I hold that the primary reason why Boltzmann, an atheist, never thought to carry out, or even propose, a precise measurement for the constant on entropy is that he, as an atheist, had thought he had arrived at the ultimate ‘random’ explanation for how everything in the universe operates when he had link probability with entropy. i.e. In linking entropy with probability, Boltzmann, again an atheist, thought he had explained everything that happens in the universe to a ‘random’ chance basis. To him, as an atheist, I hold that it would simply be unfathomable for him to conceive that the ‘random chance’ (probabilistic) events of entropy in the universe should ever be constrained by a constant that would limit the effects of ‘random’ entropic events of the universe. Whereas on the contrary, to a Christian Theist such as Planck, it is expected that even these seemingly random entropic events of the universe should be bounded by a constant. In fact modern science was born out of such thinking:
Verse and Music
Supplemental Note:
But why should the random entropic events of the universe care if and when I decide to consciously observe an unstable particle if, as Darwinists hold, I’m suppose to be the result of the random entropic events of the universe in the first place? Perhaps instead of being accidents, as Darwinists hold, we truly are, each of us, created by God?
Great comments, bornagain77. I like this one by Wolfgang Pauli:
It has always been clear to me that Darwinists were a bunch of brain-dead, superstitious dirt worshippers.
semi related:
How Free Will Works (In Quantum Mechanics) – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMp30Q8OGOE
Scott Adams had a good Dilbert strip last week on the infinite monkey theorem:
http://dilbert.com/fast/2013-12-12/
Just try to imagine what all is possible in a world with infinite possibilities!
Little wonder that ID is gaining traction.
I would add meyers book possibly is a bigger deal then realized.
If it had flopped or gained just a small audience EVOLUTIONISTS would of said AHA the movement is losing steam and a dying cause.
instead the books being the talk of the town surely demands the iD (and YEC) cause is doing gangbusters.
This books success with the educated public is a sign of future books acoming and doing well.
its a sign of a revolution in rather obscure matters taking place finally.
YEC creationists probably predicted this decades ago. finally non yEC researchers would note evolutions failings in scientific investigation and conclusions.
perhaps the writers on this forum could unite for a series of articles in a book form.
Make hay while the sun shines.
Didn’t Leo Szilard say “On the Decrease in Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings.”?
The answer: No.
@Robert
I quite agree. It would bring the materialist camp no more joy than to tout the floundering sales as a death knell for the ID camp. However, as it stands the materialists must begin the spin. They throw out classics, like suggesting it is the opium-loving American masses driving up numbers.
I posit that many are seeing through the foggy caricature of God the likes of Dawkins has erected. They are realizing one can be rational, respecting the scientific method of discovery, and accept the idea of a God.
‘Can chaos create?’
What an ironic question, but on the basis of the atheists’ apotheosis of nothingness and meaninglessness, the natural antithesis of the Christian precept that we are entrusted by God to bring order out of chaos.
It parallels the disparagement of the term Intelligent Design, the antonym of which is not ‘random chance’, but Unintelligent Design, a prime oxymoron showing that they want to have their cake and eat it; they don’t wish to use the lexicon of the rest of mankind, they repudiate it.
There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about the complexity and subtlety of the universe’s designs – in short, their reality. If a person clinically afflicted by cretinism could understand the concept of design, he could be in no less doubt on that score than any sane human being on the ‘normal to genius’ scale. The irony of the term, Unintelligent Design, therefore, is delicious, highlighting, as it does, their arrant lunacy.
semi OT: UC Berkeley Mathematician Edward Frenkel on the Transcendent World of Math – Dec. 19, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....80361.html