Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jerry Coyne prophesies last Saturday night’s Toronto debate


At his blog, Why Evolution Is True:

I don’t know for sure, but would bet a lot of money, that Krauss plumps for physics while Lamoureaux and Meyer for the importance of either God or his euphemism, a “designer.” More.

Star Bowls Prophecies are difficult, especially with respect to the future.
In the event, Krauss hollered a lot about the Discovery Institute and Lamoureux testified to his faith. Meyer tried to keep things on track despite a migraine.

Note: One of Coyne’s posters, Diana MacPherson announces, inter alia:

Meyer drives me right crazy and I would have loved to tell him that I got his book moved out of the science section at Chapters but I can sympathize with someone having a migraine and what that means when arguing…

Ah yes. Welcome to the intellectual freedom wars in Canada, where migraines are nothing compared to empowered public nannies.

See also: But for Meyer there would have been no debate

Follow UD News at Twitter!

After this debate EVOLUTION IS A LITTLE LESS TRUE! Did Krauss say creationists were doing cHILD ABUSE! Where is that nanny?? Robert Byers
as to:
"Meyer drives me right crazy and I would have loved to tell him that I got his book moved out of the science section at Chapters"
Ironically, since it is not falsifiable by experimental evidence, it is Darwinian evolution itself that does not even qualify as a rigorous science.
Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science - Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk “The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis. I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.” - Dr Michael Behe "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 3 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

Leave a Reply