Digging further into George Montañez’s new paper at BIO-Complexity, a lay-friendly version: Specified complexity allows us to measure how surprising random outcomes are, in reference to some probabilistic model. But there are other ways of measuring surprise. In Shannon’s celebrated information theory (Shannon 1948), improbability alone can be used to measure the surprise of observing a particular random outcome, using the quantity of surprisal, which is simply the negative logarithm (base 2) of the probability of observing the outcome, namely, -log2p(x) where x is the observed outcome and p(x) is the probability of observing it under some distribution p. Unlikely outcomes generate large surprisal values, since they are in some sense unexpected. But let us consider a case where all Read More ›

From Eric Holloway, based on creativity: Because creativity is unique to humans and irreducible, all human beings have the ability in principle. The fact that a particular human being’s creativity is not in use or is perhaps unusable at present does not mean that that person does not have the ability. Consequently, all humans have at least latent intrinsic instrumental value. Eric Holloway, “The Creative Spark” at Mind Matters See also: Will artificial intelligence design artificial super-intelligence? and Human intelligence as a halting oracle Follow UD News at Twitter!

Because science writers need simple sound bites and catch phrases: Dennett’s integration of popular evolution theory into his work appeals to many science writers, as this snippet from a BBC news item shows: From an evolutionary perspective, our ability to think is no different from our ability to digest, says Dennett. Both these biological activities can be explained by Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection, often described as the survival of the fittest. We evolved from uncomprehending bacteria. Our minds, with all their remarkable talents, are the result of endless biological experiments. Our genius is not God-given. It’s the result of millions of years of trial and error. Anna Buckley, “Is consciousness just an illusion?” at BBC News BBC writer Buckley makes Read More ›

Recently, we covered Evolution News and Science Today editor David Klinghoffer’s response to a sneer by Kevin Williamson against ID at National Review (where Klinghoffer used to work, incidentally). Klinghoffer cited a number of respectable thinkers who have held Darwinism in little esteem—which led to our publishing a separate and different long list of such thinkers here at Uncommon Descent. Meanwhile, Williamson replied to Klinghoffer (“Irreducible Perplexity”), who fired back: Here’s what is missing: serious public debate. Telling scientists to “slug it out” in professional journals and not try to persuade others is like asking a free-market advocate to persuade his Marxist colleagues before he dares offer his case to the public. What makes Kevin think entrenched Darwinists are willing Read More ›

. . . and the reality behind that illusion is, well, the initial illusion. Richard Dawkins famously declared that the appearance of design in living things is overwhelming. Theistic evolutionists do not disagree.  But, like arch-atheist Dawkins, they assert that the appearance of design is an illusion and Darwinian evolution is the reality behind the illusion. But TEs don’t agree with Dawkins about everything; they are, after all, “theistic.”  And to give themselves a fig leaf for the whole “theistic” part, they assert that at a deeper, empirically undetectable ontological level, God directs the process toward an end. In summary, the TE position is that the reality behind the illusion is itself an illusion, and the ultimate reality behind that Read More ›

As long-time readers know, we at UD often disparage Wikipedia for its left-wing bias. Still, you have to give it its due. For a quick lookup of non-controversial facts, it has its uses. Uses to which, apparently, Bill Nye has not put it. If he had looked up Wiki’s entry on Ptolemy’s Almagest (published in around 150 AD), he would have known that the ancients understood very well that the universe is incomprehensibly vast. Here is the Summary of Ptolemy’s Cosmos from that article: The cosmology of the Syntaxis includes five main points, each of which is the subject of a chapter in Book I. What follows is a close paraphrase of Ptolemy’s own words from Toomer’s translation. The celestial realm is Read More ›

Yesterday, I noticed how across 24 hours, a smear operation targetting students who participated in the 46th MfL played out. I commented in the MfL thread and think it is worth headlining with added media features: Let me embed some clips from Social Media, by fairly prominent personalities, these are HT Gateway Pundit, and give an idea of the sort of way piling on happens: Let me insert (Sat Jan 26) — again without specific or wider endorsement — Ben Shapiro pointing out on the narrative and its implications: Jan 26, 2019, Bishop’s letter of apology: Student’s lawyer statement: By Attorneys L. Lin Wood And Todd McMurtry ATLANTA, Jan. 25, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — On January 18, in the span of a few hours, Nick Read More ›

Jonathan McLatchie In this webinar, biologist Dr. Matti Leisola talks about his journey as a scientist from Darwin to design. See also: Jonathan McLatchie And Gunter Bechly On Conflicting Evidence Re Common Ancestry Matti Leisola: Another gifted scientist poised over the memory hole? and Matti Leisola On Evolution And The Recent Nobel Chemistry Prize Follow UD News at Twitter! Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

It’s now thought that honey bees “shimmer” in order to protect themselves from hornets: What this essentially does it make is extremely difficult for hornets to swoop in and land on their massive huddle to prey on individual bees. Kastberger and his colleagues noted in their research that shimmering can create what they described as a “shelter zone” of over a foot and a half of space between the bees and hornets or wasps. Catie Keck, “Honey Bees’ Oddly Hypnotizing ‘Shimmering’ Is Actually a Clever Defense” at Gizmodo Shimmering beats defending themselves by stinging because the bee that stings dies. Odd that bees could teach themselves this alternative purely by accident… See also: J. Scott Turner and the giant crawling Read More ›