Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Design inference

Jonathan Bartlett: Was the COVID-19 Virus Designed? The Computer Doesn’t Know

Some researchers confuse not finding a particular type of design with ruling out design of the virus. This problem is not unique to them; it is a bad habit of the scientific community which stretches back into the 1800s. Read More ›

The spreading of corona virus

UK’s Daily Mail reports: They also provide a map: A concern is that mild cases are masked under the common cold, and that the incubation period may be up to four weeks or thereabouts, not the fortnight that has been used hitherto. They are not finding a “patient zero” for some of these outbreaks, which is why there is talk of un-traceability and climbing towards pandemic. On the design front there is speculation that the genome has traces of engineering, and that people may have not been incinerating animals in a biological lab near Wuhan, but illegally disposing of them in the bush meat trade. Speculation, not confirmation. It will be interesting to see the criteria by which they might Read More ›

Karsten Pultz: A motorhead looks at design in nature

Karsten Pultz: I’m sure if Behe had asked any of the mechanics there at the garage, what they thought about the neoDarwinian hypothesis that complex machinery can be produced by random processes, they would have answered that such an idea is extremely silly, if not right out ludicrous. Read More ›

Monod’s “objectivity” (= naturalistic scientism) and begging big questions

Jacques Monod won a Nobel Prize in 1965 for work on the mechanism of genetic replication and protein synthesis. By 1970 – 71, he published a pivotal book, known in English as Chance and Necessity, which is a part of the context in which Design Thinkers have argued that no, intelligently directed configuration, design, is a third relevant factor. In writing about naturalistic origins of life, in Chance and Necessity, Monod proposed that life is the result of chance and necessity. This reflects the naturalistic attitude noted in our headline, and is tied to the a priori rejection of design as a possibility; yes, an assumption held to be pivotal to scientific “objectivity.” Clipping: [T]he basic premise of the scientific Read More ›

If Only Biologists Were This Smart!

For years, Darwinists have howled about Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter.” It was unscientific, they claimed. It is purely subjective. Etc. Yet, thinking human beings understand statistics fairly well and they know when to look for an explanation when the odds become too one-sided. Here’s an example of a government intelligence guy explaining how a poker cheat got caught. Plain and simple, the odds were too stacked against his winning streak. What put these bloodhounds on the trail of the alleged cheat wasn’t the phone in his lap, or the strange shape of the side of his cap. It was the numbers. The percentages. The law of averages. The wholly improbable, unprecedented, all but impossible string of perfect decisions and corresponding cash-outs Read More ›

drc466 exposes the argument from incredulity fallacy

Here at UD, we will headline particularly noteworthy comments spotted in discussion threads. Today, drc466 has a gem, in the Show a Natural OoL for $10 mn prize thread,: drc466 , no. 21:] “there is nothing more irritating than the constant (invalid) refrain from evolutionists of “argument from incredulity”. And the variant “God of the Gaps” or “Goddidit” accusations. When a scientist, engineer, or layman for that matter, conclusively demonstrates mathematically or empirically that something is impossible, that is not an “argument from incredulity”. It is a proof requiring evidence to the contrary. Say, for example, that I make the claim “Iron doesn’t float”. That’s not an argument from incredulity, that is a positive hypothesis based on experimental observation that Read More ›

Do Jeffrey Shallit’s writings offer more information than a blank page?

Michael Egnor wonders whether that’s true. But he faces the difficulty of convincing anti-ID mathematician Jeffrey Shallit, that HE, at least, ought to think they do. Read More ›

Inferring onward, from design to designer

One of the notorious talking points used by inveterate objectors to design theory, is that it is about stealth creationism. Closely tied, is the suggestion (or, assumption) that the claim that design inference on empirical sign only warrants inference to design as process is a dishonest stalking horse. Given a long saddening track record of career and hobbyist objectors, unsurprisingly, that is false. A simple case — and “case” is itself significant — easily shows why. About seven years ago, one night, fires broke out in two of Montserrat’s court houses, and did considerable damage (including to records). After they were put out, investigators found signs of accelerants. For cause, they inferred arson. However, they were unable to infer onward Read More ›

Logic & First Principles, 21: Insightful intelligence vs. computationalism

One of the challenges of our day is the commonplace reduction of intelligent, insightful action to computation on a substrate. That’s not just Sci Fi, it is a challenge in the academy and on the street — especially as AI grabs more and more headlines. A good stimulus for thought is John Searle as he further discusses his famous Chinese Room example: The Failures of Computationalism John R. Searle Department of Philosophy University of California Berkeley CA The Power in the Chinese Room. Harnad and I agree that the Chinese Room Argument deals a knockout blow to Strong AI, but beyond that point we do not agree on much at all. So let’s begin by pondering the implications of the Read More ›

ID Breakthrough — Syn61 marks a live case of intelligent design of a life form

Let’s read the Nature abstract: Nature (2019) Article | Published: 15 May 2019 Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome Julius Fredens, Kaihang Wang, Daniel de la Torre, Louise F. H. Funke, Wesley E. Robertson, Yonka Christova, Tiongsun Chia, Wolfgang H. Schmied, Daniel L. Dunkelmann, Václav Beránek, Chayasith Uttamapinant, Andres Gonzalez Llamazares, Thomas S. Elliott & Jason W. Chin AbstractNature uses 64 codons to encode the synthesis of proteins from the genome, and chooses 1 sense codon—out of up to 6 synonyms—to encode each amino acid. Synonymous codon choice has diverse and important roles, and many synonymous substitutions are detrimental. Here we demonstrate that the number of codons used to encode the canonical amino acids can be reduced, Read More ›

Jonathan Bartlett and Robert Marks take on Elon Musk

Are Tesla’s robot taxis a phantom fleet? What’s behind Elon Musk’s sudden wild taxi adventure? Self-driving car entrepreneur Elon Musk is nothing, if not ambitious. Earlier this week, he promised to have a million robot taxis on the road by next year, taking dead aim at Uber and Lyft. But responses have changed in recent years from Wow! To “Oh. Really?” What’s going on?: “I’m actually quite amazed that Elon even made the suggestion. Not only is the car not ready for autonomous driving, the company has not even started work on the ride-hailing software needed to support it. Additionally, the numbers presented at the conference show a complete lack of understanding of even the basics of what it costs Read More ›

Gull wing stability prompts talk of “design” in nature

One wonders how the proper authorities are coming with Darwinizing our language, so as to take out all suggestion of design or agency in nature and in humans. Not far, it seems. Maybe, instead of following Dawkins and insisting that design in nature is an illusion, researchers should just be agnostic about it for discussion purposes, given that that is how they routinely talk about it anyway. Read More ›