Category: Design inference
|May 9, 2014||Posted by PaV under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Intelligent Design|
I recently read about some study whose results conflict with Darwinian evolution. Despite the conflict, the author’s logic basically said that even though Darwinian thinking could not explain what nature contains, the fact that this happened meant that ‘somehow’ evolution had brought about this result, and that more study was needed to find out just […]
|April 7, 2014||Posted by Eric Anderson under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Origin Of Life|
Not too many months ago I ran across Richard Dawkins’ statement that life got its start when, somehow, on the early Earth a self-replicating molecule formed. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. I had read the quote before, and he has repeated the idea in various writings and interviews, but after having studied […]
|April 4, 2014||Posted by Eric Anderson under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Origin Of Life|
Recently we have been discussing Dr. Sewell’s thermodynamics-related paper/video on this thread. In addition to some excellent discussion on the Second Law, the question of abiogenesis has naturally arisen. Though related to the Second Law issue (by way of the compensation argument), I would like to move discussion of the abiogenesis question to this new […]
|March 21, 2014||Posted by Eric Anderson under Complex Specified Information, Design inference, ID Foundations, Informatics|
In my first post I discussed the concept of information, in particular whether information is contained in a physical object by its mere existence. In this post I would like to consider an additional issue relating to information, namely, the point at which information arises or comes into existence. Information is often closely associated with […]
|March 19, 2014||Posted by Eric Anderson under Complex Specified Information, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, ID Foundations, Informatics|
First of all I want to thank the Uncommon Descent moderators for allowing me to post, with a particular hat tip to StephenB. As I indicated on a prior thread, I am not sure how often I will take the time to create a new thread, but hopefully I can occasionally post something of interest. […]
|January 16, 2014||Posted by News under Design inference, Intelligent Design, News, Philosophy|
Finally, at Nagel’s urging, Dembski followed up on Hawthorne and Nolan, and realized that they aren’t just more synchro handwavers; they have something to offer.
ID Foundations, 22: What about evolutionary trees of descent and homologies? (An answer to Jaceli123’s presentation of a typical icon of evolution . . . )
As has been noted, sometimes people come to UD looking for answers to questions about what they have been taught regarding “Evolution”; typically in the context of indoctrination under the Lewontinian ideological a priori materialism that he outlined thusly in his infamous 1997 NYRB article: [T]he problem is to get [the general public] to reject […]
“I’ve grown accustomed to your face . . . ” — headlining a comment by ayearningforpublius to pose the question of origin of a significant case of FSCO/I . . . functionally specific, complex organization and/or associated information
|December 28, 2013||Posted by kairosfocus under Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design|
New UD commenter ayearningforpublius has put up a comment on the implications of facial recognition, several times. I think it significant enough as a case of FSCO/I and the challenge of addressing its origin, to headline it. But first, let’s put up the vid clip he links: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt Now, his remarks: […]
ID Foundations, 21: MF — “as a materialist I believe intelligence to be a blend of the determined and random so for me that is not a third type of explanation” . . . a root worldview assumption based cause for rejecting the design inference emerges into plain view
|December 24, 2013||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Philosophy, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, They said it . . .|
In the OK thread, in comment 50, ID objector Mark Frank has finally laid out the root of ever so many of the objections to the design inference filter. Unsurprisingly, it is a worldview based controlling a priori of materialism: [re EA] #38 [MF, in 50:] I see “chance” as usually meaning to “unpredictable” or […]
|December 6, 2013||Posted by kairosfocus under Astronomy, Cosmology, Design inference, Fine tuning, ID Foundations, Privileged planet, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Yesterday, News put up a post on the mysterious origins of the moon, invoking a classic song on being caught between the Moon and New York City. (Niwrad added a post here on the multiverse that is also worth seeing. Kindly bear in mind this earlier ID Foundations post on fine tuning.) Mahuna aptly comments: […]
|November 26, 2013||Posted by Joshua G under Creationism, Darwinism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Evolutionary biology, Naturalism, Philosophy, Religion, Science|
My neo-Darwinian friend, Francis Smallwood, has now written a response to my previous instalment in our dialogue. If you want to read it, go here. Below is a small excerpt of the response by Francis. You can read his full response by going to his blog. Follow the link at the bottom of the page. […]
Is the design inference fatally flawed because our uniform, repeated experience shows that a designing mind is based on or requires a brain?
|October 25, 2013||Posted by kairosfocus under Cosmology, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Mind|
In recent days, this has been a hotly debated topic here at UD, raised by RDFish (aka AI Guy). His key contention is perhaps best summarised from his remarks at 422 in the first understand us thread: we do know that the human brain is a fantastically complex mechanism. We also know that in our […]
|October 21, 2013||Posted by David Anderson under Design inference|
A sample for you of one of the products of unguided, undesigned, blind forces, working together for the survival of genes, with no objective meaning or purpose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhcZ6b2FSsk Can we get a meme going here? If you’ve got a blog/Facebook/Twitter etc., then post your example!
|October 1, 2013||Posted by kairosfocus under Design inference, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design|
HT, ENV. Let’s Embed, from here: Explore more infographics like this one on the web’s largest information design community – Visually. And, let us discuss. END
|September 20, 2013||Posted by News under Design inference, News|
Wouldn’t it be sort of like all the dominoes set up, and then someone just gives them a push?
|September 16, 2013||Posted by News under Darwinism, Design inference, News|
Her article identifies “growing subterranean dissent” from Darwinism. Sure, but Tom “Bonfire of the Vanities” Wolfe’s dissent isn’t exactly subterranean. He has said openly (2005), …
|September 9, 2013||Posted by DLH under Biomimicry, Complex Specified Information, Design inference, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Genomics, Intelligent Design|
How do we distinguish systems formed by natural laws, from stochastic processes, and from systems designed by intelligent agents? See Demski’s Explanatory Filter at ARN and at the IDEA Center. Now at Harvard’s Molecular Systems Lab, Peng Yin is currently focused on engineering programmable molecular systems that are inspired by biology, such as the information-directed, self-assembly […]
|September 5, 2013||Posted by News under Design inference, Religion|
The thing about arguments from design, whether biologial or cosmological, is that, because the design is evident, most counterarguments are irrational.
|September 2, 2013||Posted by News under Design inference, News, Peer review|
Why does no one believe the basic messages of Darwinism when push comes to shove? Why does everyone believe in design at that point?
|August 27, 2013||Posted by News under Atheism, Design inference, News|
… and talks like an ID theorist.