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 ›

Have you heard the one about the evolutionist who defined life as things that evolve? Evolutionists have never been too humble about their theory. Farmers must be evolutionists to grow their crops. Doctors must be evolutionists to heal their patients. Scientists must be evolutionists to do their research. In fact without evolution, life itself would be impossible. A sarcastic caricature? Not at all, for evolutionists say all these things. Listening to evolutionists one would think that the life sciences would be crippled without evolutionary theory to guide the way and explain all things. A delusion or simply the hard truth? Let’s have a look at a case study in the life sciences.  Read more

In my prior post CalvinsBulldog has some interesting questions, which I address here: Calvin, Thank you for your comments. While ID tries to be comfortably agnostic about the designer, orthodox Christians know that the designer is none other than God I would put the case somewhat differently. I would say orthodox Christians “believe” the designer is none other than God. Here the ontology/epistemology category issue arises again. Ontologically (the reality of the matter), design is obvious. Even Dawkins admits the appearance of design is “overwhelming.” Epistemology (what we can know about design): Without question the data warrant a design inference. On the face of it, operating empirically, what can we know about the designer? Not much other than that he/she/it Read More ›

Preliminary note. This post focuses on william spearshake again, and readers could be excused for wondering whether I am singling him out. Fair question. The fact is that william is a veritable fount of materialist shibboleths, which he spews with apparently gleeful abandon. In short, he has provided me with a rich vein of materialist error to mine, for which I thank him. In a prior post two materialists had this exchange: AVS If I may be so bold as to speak for WS, maybe he thinks that ID relies on the assumption that there is a designer (a god in just about all cases), which by default makes it a religious doctrine. william spearshake: AVS, exactly. Until they can Read More ›

Philosophers of science well understand that everything from enticements (prestige, publishing, etc.) to threats (tenure, funding, etc.) influence scientists and science, but perhaps no one has said it betterthan Dr. Bruce Charlton:  Read more

Update: It occurred to me that people might think this post is intended merely to pick on WS. Not so. The purpose of the post is to demonstrate the principle of charity in philosophy, science and in other areas where ideas compete. WS is a stand-in for every materialist objector to ID who assumes before the argument begins that ID proponents are all liars and therefore refuse to address their arguments at face value. william spearshake: Given that ID didn’t surface until Creationism was ruled a religion, and since it encompasses everything from 6000 year earth creationists, to evolutionary theists, and since most authors and most supportive commenters are theists (ie, Christian) I stand my my previous claim.  [i.e., that Read More ›