Intelligent Design creationism.
(Note to people reading this in a future when they’ve grown up never using a telephone for voice communication with another human: we used to have a game where a message would be distorted by serial whispering, and we found this amusing.) So apparently Thomas Nagel, who’s an honest-to-Cthulhu serious philosopher, published a book last… Continue reading Flaming Telephone
(Alternate title: “Numbers Mean Things”.) The increasingly-irrelevant Uncommon Descent blag had a post today, commenting on an article in Science News. Right now, UD’s post is entitled “Timing of human use of fire pushed back by 300,000 years”, but when it showed up in my RSS reader, it was “Timing of human use of fire… Continue reading What’s Three Orders of Magnitude Among Friends?
Here’s the blurb attached to the latest episode of the Intelligent Design the Future podcast: On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin exposes how evidence given for macroevolution in The Language of Science and Faith is too weak to hold any weight. In their book, Francis Collins and Karl Giberson make the all-too-common… Continue reading Stop Calling Neocreationists Creationists, Dammit!
IDists’ favorite pastime, apart from slagging evolution, appears to be distancing themselves from young-earth creationists, even though the differences are legion: Age of the Earth: YECs: 6,000-10,000 years old. IDs: No comment. Identity of the designer: YECs: Jehovah, god of the Bible. IDs: No comment. Scientific merit of ideas: YECs: Evolution is just as much… Continue reading But ID Isn’t Creationism, Nosirree!
You may want to save this post at Uncommon Descent, in case it disappears down the memory hole. If you’ve been following Intelligent Design, you’ve probably run across William Dembski’s notion of Complex Specified Information, or CSI. Basically, the argument is that if a system has CSI above a certain level, then it was intentionally… Continue reading Just Because We Can’t Define It Doesn’t Mean It’s Not Science
One common creationist objection to evolution is “where did the information come from?“. There are many responses to this. But one thing that often gets lost in the noise is: it doesn’t matter. What matters is, how do new organs appear? How do new body parts, behaviors, genes, chromosomes appear? As long as that happens,… Continue reading Information vs. Other Stuff
I keep hearing from cdesign proponentsists that ID is not creationism. That ID is totally a scientific theory with predictions and everything that they’d love to show except the dog ate their lab notes the mean old bourgeois scientific establishment is suppressing the truth. And then Bill Dembski posts this: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics… Continue reading ID and the 2LoT
* Not scientific. I normally don’t read Denyse O’Leary, because I like Canada too much to taint my mental image of it with her ignorant hackery. But for the past few days, she’s had a series of posts at Happy Dembski’s House of ID Circle-Jerk called about “Access Research Network’s top ten media-related intelligent design… Continue reading A Scientific* Experiment
If you’ve been following the ID movement for any time, you know that the group they try to publicly distance themselves from the most, after Darwiniacs, are other creationists, especially young-earthers. So you’ll understand my surprise when I saw this come in on the ID the Future podcast feed: On this episode of ID the… Continue reading ID ≠ YEC?
ID the Future has a new episode entitled Intelligent Design Turns 25. I haven’t listened to it, but the title alone is cause for contemplation. 25 years of “Darwinism will be dead within 5 years”. 25 years since the phrase “scientific creationism” was deemed too obviously religious to pass legal muster, and therefore in need… Continue reading ID at 25
