Huh? Actually, we thought Little Richie (Dawkins) was a special creation, just for us…
What if you begin to believe, due to neuroscience, that there is no “me” left?
Aldous Huxley, Thomas Huxley’s “Brave New World” grandson, a greater prophet than C.S. Lewis?
Does scientific knowledge presuppose God? A reply to Carroll, Coyne, Dawkins and Loftus
The scientific enterprise stands or falls on the legitimacy of making inductive inferences, from cases of which we have experience to cases of which we have no experience. The aim of this post will be to show that there can be no scientific knowledge if there is no God, and that there is no way of justifying inductive inference on a systematic basis, in the absence of God. The UK-based Science Council has defined science as “the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.” Scientific knowledge is therefore systematic rather than particular: it isn’t just about this or that fact, but about classes of facts. My senses Read More ›
Dawkins Weasel vs. Blind Search — simplified illustration of No Free Lunch theorems
I once offered to donate $100 to Darwinist Dave Thomas’ favorite Darwinist organization if he could write an genetic algorithm to solve a password. I wrote a 40-character password on paper and stored it in safe place. To get the $100, his genetic algorithm would have to figure out what the password was. I was even willing to let him have more than a few shots at it. That is, he could write an algorithm which would propose a password, it would connect to my computer, and my computer that had a copy of the password would simply say “pass or fail”. My computer wouldn’t say “you’re getting closer or farther” from the solution it would merely say “pass or Read More ›
Little Richie Dawkins
This video attempts to portray Dawkins during his childhood years, but it seems to accurately depict him as an adult! warning: Dawkins uses a swear word in this cartoon
Should scientists get concepts across by telling stories?
Sal, Wikipedia’s “facts” are just whatever survives a troll pillage
A moment of anti-Darwinian honesty at Wiki — the problem of genetic redundancy
Wikipedia is known to be Darwin loving, but here is a moment of anti-Darwinian honesty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_redundancy Genetic redundancy is a term typically used to describe situations where a given biochemical function is redundantly encoded by two or more genes. In these cases, mutations (or defects) in one of these genes will have a smaller effect on the fitness of the organism than expected from the genes’ function. Characteristic examples of genetic redundancy include (Enns, Kanaoka et al. 2005) and (Pearce, Senis et al. 2004). Many more examples are thoroughly discussed in (Kafri, Levy & Pilpel. 2006). …. A Darwinian Paradox Genetic redundancy has aroused significant debate in the context of evolutionary biology (Nowak et al., 1997; Kafri, Springer & Pilpel Read More ›