Teach Origin of Species Chapter 14!
…the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created.
…
To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes…Charles Darwin,
Origin of Species, Chapter 14
http://www.junkdna.com/fractogem/
On the subject of “junk DNA” Dr. Pellionisz believes these sections are caused by DNA being a “FractoGene” (Fractal DNA generating Fractal Organelles). I wouldn’t be surprised if DNA uses recursive mathematics for generating its complexity (plants do this for their structure at a macro level). As he explains it:
“[The] FractoGene approach to DNA, indeed, does not do away with “design”. While “genes” provide the “materials” (“building blocks” of nucleic acids for proteins, much like a building is built by bricks, concrete, steel, glass, wood, tiles, marble, etc.), the “architecture” of a building is *not* in its materials. THE ARCHITECTURE IS IN THE DESIGN. In case of the DNA and organs and organelles, FractoGene provides an *explanation* for the design; that “Junk DNA” provides auxiliary information for each (fractal) recursion how to build a hierarchy of protein structures. The explanation is algorithmic, i.e. it is given in hard terms of mathematics (fractal geometry), that is inherently “software and nanotechnology friendly”. Besides, FractoGene also put forward (quantitative) predictions that are experimentally verifiable or refutable. (Experimental support of the “Fugu prediction of FractoGene” was published in peer-reviewed science journal; see http://www.junkdna.com/fractogene/05_simons_pellionisz.html).”
(adapted from: Analogy, Induction, and Specious Arguments.)
Equivocation is a powerful technique if one has an indefensible position. For example, here is a way that one can argue that feathers cannot be dark:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
Around 2003, Shallit and Elsberry put together a paper attempting to refute ID’s claims. They did not succeed in their attempt, but in the process they left behind a legacy in the art of equivocation and bluffing.
(adapted from a discussion at Evolution and Design )
All right guys, a potential area of ID research. Who knows how long it may take to uncover, but here is where Explanatory Filter (EF) methods may help and where IDers can make a killer breakthrough for their theory if they succeed. There will be money, fame, and glory if this enigma is solved by IDers.
Consider the following quote: Like Behe, William Dembski, and the wedge-pedigreed scientists of the Discovery Institute, Coulter never really takes on evolutionary biology, presumably because she is unwilling or unable to read recent, peer-reviewed research by actual biologists. Here is who wrote it: Jennie Lightweis-Goff is a PhD candidate in the Department of English at the University of Rochester. Her forthcoming single-authored publications include “Sins of Commitment” in Senses of Cinema (July 2006). Phillip Lightweis-Goff is a self-employed artist, an activist for social change, and an avid student of history and anthropology. They live together in Rochester, New York. Here is the full article: http://www.countercurrents.org/goff100706.htm
Michael Shermer has a piece on confirmation bias in the current SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (go here). He writes: . . . In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required in experiments, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the experimental conditions during the data-collection phase. Results are vetted at professional conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research must be replicated in other laboratories unaffiliated with the original researcher. Disconfirmatory evidence, as well as contradictory interpretations of the data, must be included in the paper. Colleagues are rewarded for being skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We need similar controls for the confirmation bias in the arenas of law, business and politics. Judges and lawyers should call Read More ›
(Adapted from a discussion at Evolution and Design and from material in Trevors and Abel’s peer-reviewed paper, Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life, featured in Cell Biology International, 2004.)
The Explanatory Filter in ID literature outlines a textbook method for detecting design. If one finds a physical artifact, the artifact is inferred to be designed if the features in question are not explainable by naturalistic explanations, namely:
1. natural law, or
2. chance
(I will explain later why I define “naturalistic explanations” this way.)
However, two objections often arise:
A. How can we be sure we won’t make some discovery in the future that will invalidate the design inference?
B. How can we be sure we’ve eliminated all possible naturalistic causes, particularly since we have so few details of what happened so long ago when no one was around?
Uncommon Descent is part of the relentlessly enthusiastic online ID community that is committed to opening minds to the truth about our origins.
I hope this essay will enlighten readers on the art of seeing through the misrepresentations used against ID proponents and their literature. Combating misrepresentation is vital to defeating the Sith Lords of Darwinism. But the first step in combating misrepresentation is first recognizing it, and recognizing it is a primary skill for one aspiring to become a Jedi Master in the internet ID wars.
Below is a letter to me by Darrel Falk, a biologist on the faculty at Point Loma Nazarene University. Darrel and I have known each other for several years, and even though our views on ID diverge, we respect each other. The letter here is in response to my recent blog entry at UD on Ken Miller and Francis Collins’s possible openness to ID at the origin of life (go here). Note that Francis Collins wrote the foreword to Darrel’s book Coming to Faith with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, a book for which I also wrote an endorsement (although I have my differences with the book, I think it is one we need to engage).
In giving me permission to post this letter, Darrel remarked, “I have always greatly admired your sincerity. I have sensed a number of times how much you really want ID to be a true scientific force and not just a political force. Most recently this was clearly (and sincerely) evident in your statements in the Phillip Johnson Festschrift [i.e., Darwin’s Nemesis]. I believe you really have a vision that Intelligent Design should be of the highest quality biology. It is with that in mind that I hope you (and those who read your blog) will take my comments in the form of constructive criticism. I hope that people within the movement don’t become defensive, but will simply ask the question, ‘Does Falk have a point worth considering?’†To this he added, “I personally hope that Intelligent Design will evolve into a force that partners with science rather than a force which opposes it. If it would do that, I believe its influence would live on in ways that extend beyond the positive things it has already done.â€Â
Here, then, is the letter (unedited; the ellipses were there in the original). I’ve interspersed comments in backets using boldface.
====================== Read More ›
Thanks to Uncommon Descent subscriber Mats for the heads up. Tell all the doctors you know! Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory. Sadly, academic freedom is no longer assured in America and other countries. This is especially true when it involves espousing views contrary to the theory of Darwinian macroevolution. Numerous instances have been documented where scientists and teachers have been censored and even removed Read More ›
Question: What sort of scientific discovery will win the war for ID?
Answer: Something that will bring healing to the sick and make money for the biotech industry.
Here are some thoughts from Bill Dembski.
Keynote Address at RAPID (transcript courtesy IDEA UCSD)
Steganography
Finally, we come to the research theme that I find most intriguing. Steganography, if you look in the dictionary, is an archaism that was subsequently replaced by the term “cryptography.” Steganography literally means “covered writing.” With the rise of digital computing, however, the term has taken on a new life. Steganography belongs to the field of digital data embedding technologies (DDET), which also include information hiding, steganalysis, watermarking, embedded data extraction, and digital data forensics. Steganography seeks efficient (that is, high data rate) and robust (that is, insensitive to common distortions) algorithms that can embed a high volume of hidden message bits within a cover message (typically imagery, video, or audio) without their presence being detected. Conversely, steganalysis seeks statistical tests that will detect the presence of steganography in a cover message.
Consider now the following possibility: What if organisms instantiate designs that have no functional significance but that nonetheless give biological investigators insight into functional aspects of organisms. Such second-order designs would serve essentially as an “operating manual,” of no use to the organism as such but of use to scientists investigating the organism. Read More ›
McGill University’s Professor Brian Alters proposed a study entitled “Detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolution’s intelligent design theory on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers”. His request for funding to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, a Canadian federal agency, was denied in no uncertain terms: In denying his request, the research council’s peer-review committee recently sent Mr. Alters a letter explaining he’d failed to “substantiate the premise” of his study. It said he hadn’t provided “adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent-design theory, was correct.” Mr. Alters said yesterday that he was “shocked” at the council’s response and it offers “ironic” proof that his premise about intelligent design gaining Read More ›
Robert Hazen delivered a talk at Guillermo Gonzalez school entitled: Why Intelligent Design is Not Science. Guillermo gives a thoughtful response in the Ames Tribune here.
Hazen has participated in 2 IDEA events at GMU including one where Jonathan Wells spoke. He’s very respectful in his treatment of IDists, and has said he is open to being proven wrong. He spoke at our IDEA meeting in October 2005 before CBS News camera crews and 90 people (but the news report has never aired). In attendance were my former professor James Trefil (who debated Dembski 2 weeks later) and famous OOL researcher Harold Morowitz.
Arguments we’ve heard many times before and don’t want to hear again. If you insist on boring us with them you won’t be with us for long. Many of these can be found in the Pandamonium game. If you want to wage battles with these arguments go there and fight the pandas instead of us. Who Designed the Designer This Read More ›
Interview
The Outsiders
New Scientist, 21 January 2006, 44-46.Most of them have no formal scientific training. Often scorned by professionals. they
endure a constant battle to find funding. Yet amateur scientists continue to make a
significant contribution in just about every field. Caroline Williams asked three of the
most successful about their work: Forrest Mims III, who has taught NASA a thing or two
about ozone monitoring. Jerry MacDonald, discoverer of some of the most important
Palaeozoic fossils ever found, and Pierre Morvan, a world expert on ground beetles. They
all share a passion for exploration, an unusual route to academia -and the need for a day
job.Forrest Mims III
Forrest Mims III set up a network to monitor ultraviolet radiation and ozone levels,
first in his home state of Texas and then across the world, using a hand-held device he
invented himself. He also proved that NASA’s ozone- monitoring satellite was giving false
readings, after which NASA and other climate scientists started taking him more seriously.
Most recently, he has been looking at the effects of smoke, dust and haze on sunlight and
ecology. He makes a living writing books about science, lasers, computers and electronics.Q: Your hand-held ozone monitor became a crucial tool in monitoring stratospheric ozone
levels, which protect life on the Earth’s surface from damaging ultraviolet radiation. How
did you come to invent it?A: I became interested in measuring levels of UV radiation when I learned that the US
government had closed down its UV-monitoring network in the late 1980s. I then realised
that you could measure the ozone layer by looking at UV light at two different wavelengths
where it is absorbed by the ozone. So I built some ultraviolet detectors at home and in
1990 I began making daily measurements. I now have almost 16 years’ worth of data and I
have published many scientific papers about my findings. Read More ›