Why we have a News desk

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 3, 2015

Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Bornagain77 kindly writes, in response to: November 2014: Events that made a difference to ID,

Thanks for all your hard work. You probably don’t know it as much as you should because of all the insults from Darwinists, but you are very much appreciated!

Actually, I find Darwin’s followers, and naturalists generally, amusing—and normally judge them by whether they could possibly contribute to our site numbers in some legitimate way.

(True, some people might visit our site only to read The Best of Joe Troll and Joe Moron. But we think Joe + Joe’s fans would be happier at another site… and we would not want serious commenters of any sort to be discouraged by those guys’ slow-class antics. So I am happy with serious commenters whatever their orientation—but am a mod and can borf the Joes.)

I started writing news for Uncommon Descent a while back because it seemed that no one was telling the ID community’s story from the perspective of the ID community as such.

Having been a newsie all my life, I saw that as a significant gap.

Various publications, friendly or hostile, were fronting news about us. But there was no generic news stream for us. So I started one.

As always, some like it, some hate it, and most either read it or not. Anyway, if you heard news of interest here first, that’s my job.

See also: Who just wouldn’t be accepted in the ID community?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Dionosio:
#12 Mung [Follow-up to post #21] FYI – You may look at posts 4, 9, 10, 14, 17, and note how to deal directly with some interlocutors.
I'm not here to baby-sit you. Most of us at most times exercise self-moderation and that seems to work - most of the time.Mung_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Well, if you consider that hormones are chemical signalling proteins that are important in control and regulation of many cellular processes
Unguided evolution cannot explain any of that.Joe_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Aurelio Smith,
Can anyone answer?
Apparently rvb8 isn't interested.
Didn’t know there was an explicit axiom.
Perhaps you haven't thought about it.
It is of course, from my human perspective, self-evident.
I'm certain that if you were an ant, bee, or bacteria trying to communicate with another of your kind, you'd still need an arrangement of matter to exchange information.
Though the dualist assumptions of many ID-proponents suggest it is not universally agreed to be so.
Given that any instance of information we can see being exchanged requires the arrangement of a medium, dualist assumptions seem to have little to do with it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you grasp this much and agree, do you also recognize that in order for the arrangement of the medium to be translated into a physical effect, a system capable of producing that effect must recognize the arrangement of the medium and produce the specified effect among alternatives? As an example, an ant exchanging a pheromone to signal an alarm response, requires that the ant receiving the pheromone have a specific receptor system that individually recognizes the arrangement of the alarm pheromone and is mapped to producing that specific response, say, as opposed to either not producing that response, or producing some other response in its place (i.e. it is a specific temporal effect).Upright BiPed_{January 4, 2015
January
01
Jan
4
04
2015
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Denyse, Is the last word in the first paragraph in post # 29 an acceptable term for referring to another person in your thread and in this site?Dionisio_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

"Well, now that you've finally responded to my question...". Seversky responded in his first reply, to your first question, in the aforementioned post, dullard. Let's paraphrase so that you can keep up: You said, 'state schools are indoctrinating children towards Darwiniac science.' Seversky replied, 'actually a lot of science in evil state schools is bastardised by Christian woo meisters; you will be happy to know this.' You said, 'show me the evidence for this claim, and "why would I be happy to know?"' I gave you the specific example of Mr John Freshwater (creationist public school ning-com-poop), Seversky gave you statistics. You either can't read or are lying for Jesus. Please, one reply and an apology to Seversky are wanted.rvb8_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

#27 Seversky
In other words, if you believed that the teaching of evolution was foisting unsubstantiated dogma on students then you should be happy that there were teachers prepared to resist that imposition and teach what they believed to be the truth rather than what the curriculum required them to teach.
Well, now that you've finally responded to my question in easier for me to understand terms, I think I can see why you wrote that. I have bad news for you on this: your conclusion is wrong. I will not be happy to know that someone is disobeying the official institutional (public school system) rules and requirements implemented by their employers in order to teach what they believe to be correct. Perhaps you have been mislead by some kind of general misconceptions about true Christianity that abound out there, even among many who call themselves Christians. I encourage you to find what it means to be a Christian. The only source for that information is the Christian Bible. We Christians are sinful humans like everybody else, but we have been forgiven by the grace of God, through our saving faith in the redemptive effect of the blood of Christ, poured for our sake. We have been justified. Through Christ's righteousness we have been reconciled with God. Our eternal hope is in the promise of God through the resurrected Christ. Christ tells us to love God with all our strength and mind, and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. In terms of image (i.e. what others can see in me), I'm a Christian wannabe. Still far from reaching the desired maturity. Still doing things I don't want to do and not doing things I want to do. All I want to do is to bring glory to God and enjoy His presence forever. Not there yet. The transformation process is called sanctification (which is not to be confused with the traditional Roman church ritual that most people are familiar with). It concludes right at the moment we are called to be home with our Maker. God's saving grace is available to all who have that saving faith. But that availability should expire at the end of this age. Then Christ will come and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. Christ has told us to submit to the authorities, as long as we are not forced to act against God's will or in any manner that does not bring glory to Him. If I were a science teacher in a public school, I would try and present the required material to the students with the caveat that I personally don't agree with everything I'm going to teach them, and will let them know that there's much more to the current biology discussion besides that what is covered in the course they have to learn from me. In other words, I would encourage them to learn well the material included in the official course, so that they could understand it well and also pass the exams, but I will let them know that the course we are going to cover is just the current predominant hypothesis in academic circles, but they are free to search -after they have completed their homework assignments and studied their lessons well- for alternative explanations to what I'm going to teach them. I would make emphasis in the need for having an open mind and thinking out of the box, but will be clear on making sure they understand very well that they should learn well the material I will teach. Obviously every time they'll ask me a question about things that appear in obsolete terms in the textbook, I will refer them to the current state of scientific discoveries, including the ones that contradict the material in the textbooks, but will try to stick to the latest papers from peer-reviewed journals, making constant emphasis in their frequent use of terms like 'poorly understood' or 'incompletely understood' etc. As you can see, appearances are deceiving. Perhaps it would have been more productive if you had asked me what I think about those rebellious teachers, instead of jumping so prematurely into the wrong conclusion. Well, now you know for next time. :)Dionisio_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Dionisio @ 9
Seversky please, would you mind answering the question I asked you in post #12 in the thread pointed to by the following link? Thank you.
I thought I had but let me try again. In "The mystery at the heart of life" thread, you wrote @ 7
Well, there are some folks out there who have decided for everybody else to tell our kids in public school textbooks that it’s a known fact that it all happened by the power of the magic formula RV+NS+T=E! As you well said, there are still mysteries at the heart of the biological systems.
As I read it, you were objecting to children being taught in public school that evolution, in the form of "RV+NS+T=E" was hard fact when it was anything but. In other words, you felt that those children were being indoctrinated in a politically-correct scientific orthodoxy at the behest of some unaccountable ruling elite rather than being taught just the science. I wrote in reply:
Then you’ll be happy to know that there are a few so-called science teachers who are failing in their duty to their students by teaching them in the science classroom that the theory of evolution is wrong and Christian creationism is right, the world was created by God out of nothing in six days flat. Which is the more magical? And what happened to the Christian duty not to bear false witness?
In other words, if you believed that the teaching of evolution was foisting unsubstantiated dogma on students then you should be happy that there were teachers prepared to resist that imposition and teach what they believed to be the truth rather than what the curriculum required them to teach. That was all.Seversky_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

#12 Mung [Follow-up to post #21] FYI - You may look at posts 4, 9, 10, 14, 17, and note how to deal directly with some interlocutors.Dionisio_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

DATCG @ 18
“Full Definition of PROPAGANDA” = NCSE, Richard Dawkins, and many others who are Propagandist for the failed Darwinian paradigm.
I see Dawkins and others rather as counter-propagandists. They counter anti-evolution and anti-science propaganda with pro-evolution and pro-science propaganda of their own.
NCSE’s primary propaganda leader issued warnings to scientist at one time on what is improper to say. So much for freethinkers. Darwinist propagandist like NCSE constantly seek to oppress others, while propagandizing their world views. Even lecturing scientist how they must write their papers. Don’t think for yourselves, only say what NCSE propagandist tell you to think, say and do. When scientists in a field are instructed to avoid publicly admitting when they’re wrong, and are advised that improving the public’s perception of science is not best served by doing better science, then you know that field is steeped in intolerance towards dissent, and political pressure to give assent to orthodoxy. These are not the signs of a healthy science. What field? Evolution as Eugenie Scott of NSCE advised scientist to oppress their own thoughts… Eugenie Scott Coaches Scientists to Talk About Evolution Without Revealing Any Weaknesses Don’t speak freely, openly, don’t talk about the failed Darwinian Tree of Life… CENSOR thyself! Lest the Darwinian high priest cometh down upon you…
Now this is quite a nice example of propaganda. First, there is no mention of the source of this criticism of Eugenie Scott's position. In fact, it is culled from Evolution News and Views, the blog of the Discovery Institute which advocates Intelligent Design. The piece is written by Casey Luskin, a paid employee of the DI and, hence, a propagandist for ID. Not, of course, that there is anything wrong with any of that. So why not disclose it? Could it be that if it were know, it might raise a red flag about the objectivity and accuracy of what Luskin wrote? If you read the interview with Eugenie Scott published in Science Week you can judge for yourself. As I read it, Scott was not warning scientists to censor themselves, to say nothing other than to parrot some Darwinist party line in order to present a united front in public. What she advised was to be wary about making extravagant claims which might not be warranted by the science and which could be turned against them by their critics. Advising people to "think on" is hardly the same as censorship.Seversky_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

News @ 7
It beats me why Darwin’s followers act as if they think the news around here is written for them. I made explicit the fact that it isn’t.
We understand that. We just question whether it should be called 'news' when it is pretty obviously intended to disparage science that you don't like for some reason. That's more like commentary than news reporting.Seversky_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

F/N: Straight vs spin in news, views, edu and opinion-shaping, here. When one faces a lot of message dominance tactics and ideological domineering on an issue of culturally significant controversy, a consistent "force in being" alternative serves a very useful function, as is inadvertently testified to by those who repeatedly come to try to impose the dominant narrative. In response, let me put up the same basic point I did in a related thread. I therefore ask such to ponder, slowly and carefully without the usual dismissive talking points, the implications of the following longstanding remark, from a member of the scientific elites, Richard Lewontin:
. . . the problem is to get them [hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations [--> note attitudes, perceptions and presumptions] of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations [--> notice, the worldview level assumptions or even presumptions, cf here on for an alternative that needs to be heard], and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [“Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. If you imagine, dismissively, that all of this is "quote-mined" etc, kindly cf the fuller annotated cite, here.]
Then, think carefully about what you would think if you were on the receiving end of that sort of ideological establishment. Then, think about how those who may not have been so privileged as you have been educationally and otherwise, and have had to fight their way up in life (perhaps, as a US Navy/ Army/ Air Force Tech or the like . . . and we have at least three fitting that exact profile in and around UD) will try to express their objections to that sort of domineering. Then, try to see, actually see the point they have tried to make. Next, go to a fishing tackle shop, and ask to inspect an Abu Garcia Ambassadeur 6500 C3 or similar fishing reel. Yes, a humble little fishing reel -- and I have noticed the sneering dismissiveness that refuses to acknowledge the basic fact such an entity unquestioningly demonstrates. Appeal to something not anywhere so sophisticated as a so-called, living cell but moderately so as a Jumbo Jet to illustrate a commonplace reality, and that is dismissed. Go to something very simple such as a fishing reel and that is also shut out from being allowed to point to an unwelcome fact. It begins to look like the conclusion is written before the argument is heard. Ponder the functionally specific, complex interactive organisation the reel reveals and the linked information implied by the nodes-arcs wiring diagram. Try to bring yourself to the point where you can acknowledge some simple facts linked to the manifest FSCO/I in that fishing reel: 1 --> FSCO/I is an apt descriptive summary of a readily observable phenomenon (the fishing reel being a particularly simple and intuitive case in point) 2 --> There is only one actually observed cause of such entities, intelligently directed configuration, aka design. 3 --> A back of the envelope estimate of a plausible configuration space will show how atomic and temporal resources of solar system or observed cosmos will be massively overwhelmed in a blind search for FSCO/I, at just 500 - 1,000 bits. The upper end being all of 125 bytes of info, or 143 ASCII characters, the length of a Twitter comment. So, FSCO/I beyond that threshold is a tested, reliable index or sign of design as cause. 4 --> Life forms are full of such cases of FSCO/I, and the von Neumann self replicator (vNSR) involved from the cell upwards, is even more of the same. 5 --> Consequently, no-one has been able to provide a serious, empirically adequately grounded account of the spontaneous origin of life in Darwin's pond or the like pre-life environment. 6 --> Similarly, no-one (given info requirements of 10 - 100+ nm bases) has been able to give an adequately empirical observation grounded detailed account of origin of major body plans, features, organ systems etc, that fits well with reasonable pop sizes, generation spans, and mutation rates. 7 --> Instead, we see a fundamentally ideological imposition, backed up by some very familiar and too often ugly tactics, turning origins sciences and linked science education into a morass of politically tainted, too often quite ruthless and censoring institution dominance. Then, please think again. KFkairosfocus_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

I enjoy reading many of the news OPs, though can't afford to read them all, due to limited time. Since the variety of subjects is quite wide, a few of the news OPs are about things I may not interested in, but I think there have not been many news OPs in that category.Dionisio_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

#12 Mung
I’m guessing that where you went off the rails was in posting the same thing repeatedly. Did you know you were doing that?
Yes, I knew I was doing that. It was intentionally done to make sure the interlocutors don't miss seeing my questions, after several preceding occasions where they had failed to respond or responded in a manner that was not clear to me. I tried to imitate an ancient tradition from another culture that repeated a word 3 times to indicate that it was very important. But that was my mistake. I shouldn't have done that. Looking back now I see that I wasted much time. BTW, my wife does not like to see me participating in this blog. She says that it takes precious time away from working on my main current project, which is behind schedule. I think she's right. But I kind of like to look what's going on here every now and then. :) If I disappear from this site, chances are that she either convinced me or gave me an ultimatum. :) Thank you for your advice. Will keep it in mind. Happy 2015!Dionisio_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Darwinist Propagandist awarding Darwinist Propagandist... Atheist Alliance of America Will Honor Top Darwin Lobbyist DATCG_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

More attempt at thought control by Darwinist who now seek to disassociate themselves from Darwinism... Don't call it Darwinism or Neo-DarwinsimDATCG_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

"Full Definition of PROPAGANDA" = NCSE, Richard Dawkins, and many others who are Propagandist for the failed Darwinian paradigm. NCSE's primary propaganda leader issued warnings to scientist at one time on what is improper to say. So much for freethinkers. Darwinist propagandist like NCSE constantly seek to oppress others, while propagandizing their world views. Even lecturing scientist how they must write their papers. Don't think for yourselves, only say what NCSE propagandist tell you to think, say and do.
When scientists in a field are instructed to avoid publicly admitting when they're wrong, and are advised that improving the public's perception of science is not best served by doing better science, then you know that field is steeped in intolerance towards dissent, and political pressure to give assent to orthodoxy. These are not the signs of a healthy science.
What field? Evolution as Eugenie Scott of NSCE advised scientist to oppress their own thoughts... Eugenie Scott Coaches Scientists to Talk About Evolution Without Revealing Any Weaknesses Don't speak freely, openly, don't talk about the failed Darwinian Tree of Life... CENSOR thyself! Lest the Darwinian high priest cometh down upon you...
There is no reason to provide anti-intellectual, anti-evolutionists with quotes like "The Darwinian paradigm is dead", because this complexity only enhances Darwin's most profound insight – the universal common ancestry of life.
Quote above from Rose and Oakley in response to Dr. Koonin's comments on the failed Darwinian TOL paradigm.DATCG_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

#14 hrun0815 Whining now? Did you forget that you initiated the 'chat' with me in your post #25 in that same thread? Here's the evidence: https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/2014-the-naturalist-theory-of-consciousness-was-as-successful-as-ever/#comment-539993 If you do not address your comments to me, and don't mention me in your comments, perhaps your odds of not being addressed in my comments will increase tremendously. Try to go undetected under my radar, and maybe that'll help you to remain undisturbed. :)Dionisio_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Denyse:
(True, some people might visit our site only to read The Best of Joe Troll and Joe Moron. But we think Joe + Joe’s fans would be happier at another site… and we would not want serious commenters of any sort to be discouraged by those guys’ slow-class antics. So I am happy with serious commenters whatever their orientation—but am a mod and can borf the Joes.)
"[B]orf the Joes"? What does that mean? And are you suggestion that Joe could be categorised as a troll or a moron? And what are 'slow-class' antics? Are you distancing yourself from some of your uncensored commentators?
Actually, I find Darwin’s followers, and naturalists generally, amusing—and normally judge them by whether they could possibly contribute to our site numbers in some legitimate way.
Do you mean helping you to increase your hit rate? More readers is good, fewer readers means looking for work someplace else? I would have thought you'd be more interested in meaningful dialogue, but, as you say, it's about the numbers. If your paper sells more, you win.Jerad_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

rvb8 at 1 you ask,,,
"how is design detected?"
Although there are various methods for scientifically detecting design, basically, at its most foundational level, 'design detection' is an inbuilt, 'natural', ability that humans possess because of the 'image of God' that they have within themselves. In the following video Dr. Behe quotes Richard Dawkins himself from his book 'The Blind Watchmaker', in noting that 'design detection' is 'natural' for humans:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" Richard Dawkins - "The Blind Watchmaker" - 1986 - page 1 "We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent knowledgeable enguineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose... Any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed... simply by looking at the structure of the object." Richard Dawkins - "The Blind Watchmaker" - 1986 - page 21 "Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning." Richard Dawkins - "The Blind Watchmaker" - 1986 - page 21 Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design - 2010 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY
Moreover, Richards Dawkins is not the only atheist who seems to be afflicted with this mental illness of seeing the 'illusion of design' pervasively throughout life.
living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed" Lewontin "The appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature." George Gaylord Simpson
Indeed, the atheist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, seems to have been particularly haunted by this illusion of seeing design everywhere he looked in molecular biology:
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit "Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this" Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit - p. 30
Thus, since these atheists are seeing the 'illusion of design', (seeing this illusion of design with what they claim to be to be is the 'illusion of their mind' I might add :) ), without ever conducting any scientific experiments to ever rigorously 'detect design', then of course the ID advocate would be well justified in saying that these atheists are not really suffering from a mental illness after all but they are in fact 'naturally detecting design' because of the inherent 'image of God' that they have within themselves. And in support of that inference that atheist may not be suffering from mental illness after all when they see this 'illusion of design' pervasively throughout life, a tantalizing clue that we are indeed made in the image of God is our unique ability to process information.
Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.” http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
Moreover, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. this unique ability to process information, are the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic that is found to be foundational to life:
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU
As well, as if that was not 'spooky' enough, information, not material, is found to be foundational to physical reality:
Quantum physics just got less complicated - Dec. 19, 2014 Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,, "The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,",,, http://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf
Thus in conclusion, the atheist, without one shred of evidence that unguided material processes can create non-trivial information, is forced to say he is mentally ill because he can't help seeing the 'illusion of design' everywhere he looks in life. Whereas the Theist can hold, because life and reality itself are both information theoretic in their basis, and because humans uniquely possess the ability to understand, create, and communicate information, can hold that the atheist is not really mentally ill after all, but that the design the atheist imagines he sees in life is not an illusion at all but is, in fact, really real! Verses and Music:
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. Casting Crowns - The Word Is Alive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9itgOBAxSc
of supplemental note:
Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design https://vimeo.com/32148403 "The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question." Stephen Meyer - "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way. - Doug Axe PhD. - quoted from video "Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual"
Indeed, the constraints on unguided processes, via 'numerous, successive, slight modifications', evolving even one protein into another protein are found to be severe. The estimated waiting time for unguided processes changing one protein of one function into a very similar protein of a different, but similar, function is found to be on the order of one quadrillion years.
"Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?" - Ann Gauger - January 1, 2015 Excerpt: The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That's longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/happy_new_year092291.html
bornagain77_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Really, Dionisio? You use a total non-sequitur to point me to three other posts where your 'question' to me was to answer for other posters? Ah, right, you are supposedly giving me a 'taste of my own medicine'?hrun0815_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

What will be newsworthy here would be when the critics respond seriously to any number of the challenges currently on the table. Instead we get trolls.Mung_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Dionisio, I'm guessing that where you went off the rails was in posting the same thing repeatedly. Did you know you were doing that? There is that one thread you are keeping alive with quotes from and references to various papers, and I really don't think anyone has a problem with that. It's spamming and hijacking that people find unseemly. CheersMung_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed I'm trying to heed your advice to change my approach to posting here. I should refrain from producing massive "blitzkrieg" interrogation or unnecessary "Dresden bombardment" posting. After you brought it up to my attention in a nice manner, I realized my mistake. Please, accept my apologies. Please, let me know if you notice that I'm overdoing in my posting again. Thank you. :)Dionisio_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

#5 hrun0815
...failure to recognize...
Since you mentioned "failure to recognize", let's hope that you will not fail to respond to what I wrote to you in posts # 39, 43 and 45 in the thread pointed to by the following links: https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/2014-the-naturalist-theory-of-consciousness-was-as-successful-as-ever/#comment-540045 https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/2014-the-naturalist-theory-of-consciousness-was-as-successful-as-ever/#comment-540209 https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/2014-the-naturalist-theory-of-consciousness-was-as-successful-as-ever/#comment-540212 BTW, you don't have to respond my questions. It's fine if you choose to leave them unanswered. :)Dionisio_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Seversky please, would you mind answering the question I asked you in post #12 in the thread pointed to by the following link? Thank you. https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/2014-the-naturalist-theory-of-consciousness-was-as-successful-as-ever/#comment-539940 BTW, if you read the above linked post #12, you may want to read also post #14 for additional clarification. https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/2014-the-naturalist-theory-of-consciousness-was-as-successful-as-ever/#comment-539943Dionisio_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

rvb8:
...at what microscopic level can we say, ‘stop here, beyond this structure evolution is replaced by design
Here you show your ignorance of ID. Evolution and design are not mutually exclusive. Go and watch a bird building a nest where you will see a demonstration of something being designed. You are welcome to believe that this has come about through a series of unguided changes to the genomes of its ancestors. But this would be a matter of faith which is in no way demonstrated. What it does demonstrate is that nature is capable of producing designed objects in advance of the need for them. We humans are also capable of designing objects for future use and this process begins in the mind and is then realised physically. I have no problem with seeing the merits of ID and I have no problem with believing that life evolves. What I do have a problem with is the unjustified assumption that evolution must be a blind, unguided process.CharlieM_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

It beats me why Darwin's followers act as if they think the news around here is written for them. I made explicit the fact that it isn't. They have the pop science media for that. They do a good Grelber the Free Insults Troll routine, but it is hardly original (1970): "Grelber was a part of the original cast in Broom-Hilda. It was never seen what Grelber really looked like, he was only a face in a log and all he did was coming with rude and obnoxious comments on the situation at hand." http://www.weirdspace.dk/RussellMyers/Grelber.htm You can buy it, but you can't sell it.News_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

From Merriam-Webster
Full Definition of NEWS 1 a : a report of recent events b : previously unknown information c : something having a specified influence or effect 2 a : material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast b : matter that is newsworthy
or
Full Definition of PROPAGANDA 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Seversky_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

KF, I Find your failure to recognize the 'significance of news, views and issues coverage' here at UD 'sadly revealing.' But, of course, I will not encourage you to think again. Wouldn't do any good anyway.hrun0815_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @ 1 Talking about serious commenters, please, keep in mind that you have failed to produce a valid document (i.e. to point to the required text), in order to support your accusatory claims against another person, which you wrote in another thread. See posts # 41 and 42 in the thread pointed to by the following link: https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/2014-the-naturalist-theory-of-consciousness-was-as-successful-as-ever/#comment-540202 You may want to look at this once more and try to resolve it correctly, so that I don't have to continue reminding you about it every time I see you posting in this blog.Dionisio_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply