Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Topic

Ola Hössjer

Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 10, 2021
Categorized
Fine tuning, Intelligent Design, theism
Tagged
, , , , ,

At Mind Matters News: If extraterrestrials didn’t fine tune Earth, maybe there is a God

Denyse O'Leary
October 10, 2021
Fine tuning, Intelligent Design, theism
In the face of a grab bag of ideas like creation by ETs or countless universes (some run by cats), why does the idea of a Creator seem far out? Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 4, 2021
Categorized
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Naturalism
Tagged
, , ,

At Mind Matters News: Our Universe Survived a Firing Squad and It’s Just an Accident?

Denyse O'Leary
October 4, 2021
Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Naturalism
Ola Hössjer: According to the Weak Anthropic Principle, we should not be surprised to live in a universe that harbors life. But I should add that, in our paper, "Cosmological Tuning Fine or Coarse?," we compute or give an upper bound for the probability of a randomly generated universe to have a certain constant of nature, ending up within its life-permitting interval. We take the Weak Anthropic Principle into account — and still we come up with small probabilities for certain constant of natures or certain ratios or constants of nature. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
September 21, 2021
Categorized
Fine tuning, Intelligent Design
Tagged
, , ,

At Mind Matters News: Can there be a general theory for fine-tuning?

Denyse O'Leary
September 21, 2021
Fine tuning, Intelligent Design
Swedish mathematician Ola Hössjer, who is working on a general theory of fine tuning, sees the beauty of mathematics in the fact that seemingly unrelated features in cosmology and biology can be modeled using similar concepts. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
August 19, 2021
Categorized
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Mathematics
Tagged
, , , , ,

ID theorists publish new paper in Journal of Theoretical Biology

Denyse O'Leary
August 19, 2021
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Mathematics
We hope the journal isn’t intimidated by Darwin’s Outrage Machine, Inc. Just think, some people are now allowed to bring this up. And not just as an inhouse titter, followed promptly by dismissal of the question. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
November 5, 2020
Categorized
Culture, Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
Tagged
, , , ,

Karsten Pultz comes to the defense of the Elsevier editors who say they did not know that the Hossjer–Thorvaldsen paper was ID-friendly

Denyse O'Leary
November 5, 2020
Culture, Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
The editors need not, of course, sympathize with the ID perspective to think that evidence for it should be permitted to be discussed. At one time, that was a conventional intellectual position. But the Darwinians, as we’ve said here earlier, are an early flowering of Cancel Culture. No evidence may be discussed that may be thought to favor an Incorrect view. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 20, 2020
Categorized
Fine tuning, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity
Tagged
, , ,

Karsten Pultz offers some thoughts on the flap over the now-famous Thorvaldsen and Hössjer paper

Denyse O'Leary
October 20, 2020
Fine tuning, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity
It should also be considered that in his book Der Teil und das Ganze, Werner Heisenberg expresses his own and also Niels Bohrs’ doubt that random mutations could have produced any of the complex biological systems... Bohr adds that while natural selection obviously occurs it is the idea that new species come about by random changes, which is very hard to imagine, even if this is the only way science can explain it. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 19, 2020
Categorized
Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, , ,

That notorious ID paper was the one most downloaded from the Journal…

Denyse O'Leary
October 19, 2020
Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Eventually, people, we are going to have to start rewarding the Darwinians for banning and persecuting advocates of design in nature. Look, guys, it's only fair. Mediocrities steam themselves into near oblivion to destroy the idea and their efforts only fan the flames. Sadly, all we wanted was a serious discussion. We never asked them to be Roman candles. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 12, 2020
Categorized
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, , , ,

Now the Journal of Theoretical Biology is publishing a rebuttal letter to the design-friendly paper

Denyse O'Leary
October 12, 2020
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Which is fine in principle. But be realistic. The Darwin mob, an early flowering of Cancel Culture, will not be satisfied with anything less than retraction and the obliteration of the careers of everyone involved. If that is accomplished by scandalously spurious means, all the better for the mob. That increases its sense of power and self-justification. Saying NO! To them is an act of liberation. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 11, 2020
Categorized
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, , ,

Here’s the Twitter discussion of that ID-friendly paper at the Journal of Theoretical Biology

Denyse O'Leary
October 11, 2020
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review
The Darwinist commenters below the tweet would put one in mind of coyotes except that coyotes must, perforce, have pack standards. They can’t just howl ANYTHING they please... Well, we shall see what happens next. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 9, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, , ,

Journal editors now claim they didn’t “know” that the Thorvaldsen and Hossjer paper was ID-friendly

Denyse O'Leary
October 9, 2020
Intelligent Design
In Klinghoffer’s telling, maybe the editors thought the paper was okay, maybe even interesting. Then they got mobbed by Darwin thugs and now can’t cringe low enough to atone for their grievous error. Surely there’s a floor down there somewhere… Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 2, 2020
Categorized
Culture, Darwinism, Fine tuning, Intelligent Design
Tagged
, , , ,

Cancel Culture lets an ID-friendly paper slip through the cracks

Denyse O'Leary
October 2, 2020
Culture, Darwinism, Fine tuning, Intelligent Design
At ENST: "Sure enough, after Darwinists discovered the article, they succeeded in obtaining a “disclaimer” from the journal’s editors, who proclaimed their bias against ID. But the disclaimer actually made publication of the article all the more significant." Read More ›