Reverend Fathers, Since the Pope’s upcoming encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si, is due to be released later this month, I’m sure you will be very busy telling the world’s 1.2 billion Catholic laypeople (including myself) what the encyclical means. My reason for writing this post is that while most people (including members of the clergy) are quite well-informed about the science of global warming, they tend to be poorly informed about the solutions to the problem of man-made global warming, as well as the costs of implementing those solutions. Some of you may think that these are technical issues, which the clergy need not concern themselves with. But Scripture itself counsels us to be prudent servants of the Lord, Read More ›

In a current UD News thread, we see how Megan Fox at PJ Media reports: >>If you want to know why people dislike atheists, it’s because they’re thoroughly dislikeable. And if you should find yourself on the wrong side of atheists, like I did by simply posting a video [–> perhaps, this] of myself walking through the Field Museum in Chicago asking questions about evolution — a topic many still view as controversial — be prepared to have to go to the police and file reports of harassment and cyberstalking. You are not allowed to question the gods of the atheists, namely Darwin and the scientists who bow at the altar of Darwin. If you do, you’ll face nothing but insults, Read More ›

Yeah, that guy. Him. This time here. Motivation guru and author Dr Deepak Chopra on Friday challenged Darwin’s theory of evolution, saying it is “consciousness” and not “random mutations and natural selection” that explains where the human beings today are. “Charles Darwin was wrong. Conscsiousness is key to evolution and we will soon prove that,” the celebrated motivational guru said at the India Today Conclave 2015 in New Delhi. More than a 100 years ago, Darwin had established that all species of life descended from common ancestors. More: Actually, Darwin did not establish common ancestry so much as he made it an excellent living for otherwise possibly useless people. His cause means, for example, that if human beings have justice Read More ›

That’s the only conclusion I can draw, after reading Professor Larry Moran’s latest reply to my post, No evidence for God’s existence, you say? A response to Larry Moran. More on that anon. I will, however, note for the record that Professor Moran has backed down from his original assertion that there is no evidence whatsoever for God’s existence. He now writes: When I say there’s no evidence for the existence of god(s) I mean that there is no “evidence” that stands up to close scrutiny… That brings up the question of what defines “valid evidence.” The short answer is “I don’t know” but I know it when I see it. “I know it when I see it.” Hmm. Where Read More ›

In my previous post, Six bombshells relating to H. L. Mencken and the Scopes Trial, I exposed six journalist bombshells relating to the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. I also accused Mencken of lying on nine particular points – a charge for which I shall provide substantiation in today’s post. Mencken’s Nine Major Misrepresentations – An Executive Summary What did Mencken lie about, in his reporting on the Scopes trial? First, Mencken lied about the key point at issue in the Scopes Trial, which was not whether the theory of evolution could be taught in Tennessee’s public high schools, but whether the evolution of man from “lower animals” could be taught as a scientific theory to high school Read More ›

Islands of function in a space of configurations, of course, are used as a metaphor for special zones T, which has been visualised at UD as follows, based on the underlying Mathematics of phase spaces and configuration spaces, using among other inputs, Dembski’s remarks in his No Free Lunch: U/D: A way to visualise the search challenge on the gamut of our solar system: A good way to visualise what is happening in physical, ordinary 3-d space as we inject functionally specific complex organisation and associated information would be to take a pile of lego bricks: . . . and contrast it with the functional organisation of a lego brick castle: . . . or that of the “exploded view” Read More ›

. . . and blatant denial is not an appropriate response to the reality of and/or easily known facts concerning functionally specific complex organisation and /or associated information, FSCO/I: Facts are stubborn things, but people can be more stubborn than that. (That is, there are two types of ignorance, I: simple ignorance because one does not know the facts and/or may not understand them, but also II: ideological closed-mindedness due to being controlled by mind-closing agendas hostile to, selectively hyperskeptical towards and dismissive or suppressive of inconvenient facts, . . . such as those we just saw regarding FSCO/I.) Why am I saying this? Poster-boy no 1, rich @ 252  in the UD no bomb thread: [KF:] “Your comment no Read More ›

In a previous post two years ago, entitled, H. L. Mencken: Is this your hero, New Atheists?, I accused H. L. Mencken (pictured left) of lying and character assassination, in his reporting on the 1925 Scopes trial. Specifically, I charged that Mencken knowingly and deliberately made false statements about William Jennings Bryan (pictured right), a three-time Democratic Presidential candidate and eloquent orator, whose passionate opposition to Darwinism led him to volunteer his services an assistant prosecutor during the Scopes trial. To accuse a highly respected author such as Mencken of slander is a very serious matter, and in today’s post and an upcoming post, I’m going to substantiate this charge. Mencken not only slandered Bryan; he also slandered the people Read More ›

Last year, I reviewed Daniel Friedmann’s best-seller, The Genesis One Code, which argued that the Bible, when properly interpreted, teaches that the universe is 13.74 billion years old – which is about as old as scientists currently believe it to be (13.798 billion years). Friedmann’s book also made a number of scientifically falsifiable claims – including the striking prediction that the Earth would turn out to be 9 billion years old and to pre-date the solar system (which sounds unlikely but just might turn out to be true). Friedmann’s scientific background as a professional engineer with a master’s degree in engineering physics who is also the CEO of a leading aerospace company undoubtedly lent his book extra credibility. Friedmann’s second Read More ›

In recent days, objector ES has been twisting the concept of Wickensian functionally specific information-bearing complex organisation into post-modernist deconstructionist subjectivist pretzels, in order to obfuscate the plain inductive argument at the heart of the design inference and/or explanatory filter. For example, consider these excerpts from the merry go round thread: ES, 41: . . . If a conscious observer connects some observed object to some possible desired result which can be obtained using the object in a context, then we say that the conscious observer conceives of a function for that object . . . . In science, properties of the material just are, without purpose, because everybody knows purpose is subjective. Functionality comes in when you get engineerial, Read More ›

If you had to summarize your reasons for believing in God in ten words or less, how would you do it? Here’s what I’d say: “The world is contingent, complex, fine-tuned, rule-governed, mathematical and beautiful.” For me, these features of the world point towards a Being Who is necessary (or self-explanatory), perfectly integrated, and limitlessly intelligent, creative and bountiful – a Being in Whom we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). As you can see, I’ve listed not one but several features of the natural world which (I believe) point to the existence of a Creator. Here’s a question. How would you react if someone told you that you didn’t need to list all these features: just Read More ›

As UD regulars will know, it’s silly season here in Montserrat. As a result, I am facing the long vs short copy debate and the issue of the demand for excessive simplicity. Which, opens us up to be naive and easily misled — including when we indulge the fallacy of selective hyperskepticism. (As in: if you dismiss what is credible, it’s because you have already swallowed what isn’t.) I have therefore put up a few thoughts, and think they are relevant to the ID debate also. (As in, why is it so many are so willing to swallow short and clever but highly misleading barbed slogans such as: “Creationists in cheap tuxedos”?) In a nutshell: SHORT COPY GAINS ATTENTION BUT, Read More ›