My first post on UD, a mere 6 weeks ago, covered some basic principles about information. Specifically, I addressed the misunderstandings of those who deny that there is anything special about the information contained in, say, DNA, as opposed to a pile of rocks or Saturn’s rings.  We had a very productive discussion, with a number of issues explored.  (Incidentally, I used the word “contain” as a shorthand way of expressing what Mung suggested we call “sequences of symbols” that “represent information.”  I’m fine with that longer formulation, as we are saying the same thing substantively.  Any nuance there isn’t germane to the point of today’s brief post.) As we were winding up the thread, Mung asked if I had any sources of people who espoused Read More ›

Physicist Alan Lightman demonstrates the existence of Zeus in his review of Why Science Does Not Disprove God by Amir D. Aczel For those who prefer not to have a Divine Engineer tuning the dials, the alternatives are unpalatable. The most natural are multiverse theories, according to which all possible universes exist simultaneously and we simply find ourselves in the one that makes our existence possible. This is not out of the question, but there is no actual evidence for it. It is just an “atheism of the gaps,” calling imaginary entities from the vasty deep to plug a theoretical hole. The postulation probably involves gods, too—maybe not the omnipotent creator of the Abrahamic religions, but surely some unlikely combination Read More ›

Evolution is a fact, but what kind of fact? To answer this question one must listen to the evolutionists. In his recentdebate versus Paul Nelson, Joel Velasco gave a nonstop version of Darwin’s one-long argument that, once again, makes clear what kind of fact evolution is. Velasco gave a rapid-fire rundown of the scientific misrepresentation, logical excursion and, most importantly,  read more