18Jun 2020 by Post

Chance, Necessity, and Design

automobiles, chance, chassis, critics, design, design detection, differential, doors, explanatory filter, Intelligent Design, Jonathan Waldman, Joshua Swamidass, kinetic theory of heat, necessity, probability, repudiation, retirement, rust, Rust: The Longest War, Sean McDowell, shocks, Uncommon Descent
ID supporters continue to send me emails about Josh Swamidass. The latest hammers on a comment I made in 2008 at Uncommon Descent, namely: “I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF [Explanatory Filter]. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.” I would not write that now. In my view the filter is just fine and it neither conflates nor falsely differentiates the three modes of explanation (chance, necessity, and design). My comment back then should be seen as an unnecessary concession to critics, not as undercutting the filter per se. To properly use the Explanatory Filter, it is vital to identify what exactly one is trying to explain. Take a rusted automobile. In Jonathan Waldman’s wonderful…
Read More
02Jun 2020 by Post

Darwin’s Desperation?

"survival of the fittest", appendix, beards, BioEssays, Brois Yeltsin, California Science Center, cell's, censorship, chimpanzees, choking, Christians, Communist Party, conferences, Current Biology, Darwin Devolves, Darwinian theory, Dave Speijer, Dover trial, dysteleology, epiglottis, Evolution, Glenn-Peter Sætre, Heretic, Intelligent Design, J.B.S. Haldane, Judge John E. Jones, Kremlin, lip-smacking, Matti Leisola, methodological naturalism, Michael Behe, Norway, peasants, Richard Dawkins, Richard Sternberg, Social media, speech, Stephen Jay Gould, Summers Seminars, Uncommon Descent, University of Oslo
They used to just ignore us. That worked for many years. Rare appearances of the loathsome words “intelligent design” in scientific journals were quickly squashed, as Richard Sternberg can attest. Occasional payouts to avoid lawsuits, like at the California Science Center, could be dismissed as inconvenient hush money, quickly settled and ignored by the press.  Meanwhile, Darwinism marched on, confident and triumphant. Largely unimpeded by any need for debate, evolutionary biologists and psychologists, safe in the accepted custom of methodological naturalism, could spin their just-so stories without fear of contradiction. The media were willing accomplices, keeping the public submissive and quiet, satisfied with the daily illusions pouring forth from the ministry of truth. See how wonderful, elegant, and powerful Darwin’s theory is at explaining everything — from human speech evolving…
Read More