Friday, December 21, 2007

The Design of Life

The Design of life is causing quite stir over at Check it out.. We have just ordered our copy..

Note added Jan.3/08 Whoah! The Design of life on appears now to be the victim of numerous drive-by one-star postings and numerous attendant "helpful" Darwinian button pushers!

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

A Brookfield ID-Darwinian Diagram

In this schematic diagram "structure" and the "information" that codes for it, are represented as vertical (Z-axis) amplitude. Positive Z-axis motion (upward) requires intelligent design. Both "natural selection and "random mutation" being context insensitive are subsequently incapable of producing new structure/information.

Friday, November 23, 2007

The Design Matrix Appears

"The Design Matrix" is a book by independent ID researcher "Mike Gene." We don't know who he is but he is certainly a person of interest in the ID debate. His new book can also be ordered through

Nov 24 -- We've ordered our copy. Have you ordered yours?

Thursday, November 22, 2007

The New Fundamentalism

While the public is already quite aware of religious fundamentalism and its dangers, many have suggested that there is a new fundamentalism around – Darwinist/materialist fundamentalism. This new fundamentalism, it is claimed, inhabits the scientific community at the highest levels. Scientists and science organizations have all denied these claims. Well it now looks like we have some more proof. Check out the following..

On the 16 of November 2007 the Baylor U’s student newspaper (the Lariat) posted an internet voting poll asking the question "How Should Baylor (University) Approach Intelligent Design Research?". Denyse O’leary from Uncommon Descent picked up the story and posted the early results from the 16th showing only 35 fundamentalists votes (below)..

However, after some early results had come in (most probably due to Denyse O'leary's posting) PZ Myers at Pharyngula caught wind of the poll and posted (Nov 17 9:54 PM) with a suggestion that Pharyngula readers "skew it the Pharyngula way!"

"Pharyngula" won the 2005 Koufax Award for Best Expert Blog. The science journal "Nature" ranked Pharyngula as the number one blog (in the world) written by a scientist (July, 5, 2006). “Nature” ranks second in the world out of 48 journals in multidisciplinary science, and first in total number of citations. By targeting senior scientists "Nature" is considered by many the most influential science magazine in the world. Nature apparently has no problem with PZ Myers various troubling (fundamentalist) comments such as (April 4 2005) where for instance PZ Myers recomends the use of “brass knuckles and steel toed boots” with which “scientists” (thugs?) are supposed to “hammer on the lunatics and idiots.” (I.E., anyone who {like me} questions the creative power of Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection).

As of Sunday (Nov. 18th) afternoon "Pharygulain skewing" had produced 1249 more fundamentalist votes with 1284 now voting to "prohibit" ID research.

Prohibit it 1284
Encourage it 1077
Discourage it 1005
Support it 87

And by November 19 7:42 PM "Pharyngulian skewing" had produced 528 more fundamentalist votes for a grand total of 1812.

There you have it folks. Should you wish to empirically test and mathematically quantify the relative functional specificity of the e-coli bacterial flagella -- using gene knock-out experiments (and good old math) -- you're out of luck. This work "should be prohibited." Maybe that's why Scott Minnich's (gene knock-out) experiments went missing from the recent NOVA docu-drama on ID(?). ID research is simply prohibited/forbidden and is subsequently removed -- for the good of "civilization" of course. (Note: My argument here does not hinge on whether ID is valid science or not. If alchemy had been successfully prohibited we would not have modern chemistry!{nor modern civilization!}). The prohibiting of science is anti-science and anti-civilization.

Note to Kenneth Miller/NOVA: The base of your "tie clip" is dead weight. As such it would be removed or minimized by natural selection in a natural setting -- just as with the excess metal wire not needed for tie clipping functionality. None of these optimizing steps are steps along the way to a functioning mouse trap.

Monday, October 01, 2007

PZ Myers defines evidence of design

PZ Myers, who is more a destination of entertainment than scientific rigor, has done the unthinkable. He has recently admitted to what would constitute evidence of design. I know!

Getting Evolutionists to admit what would be evidence of design is about as hard as it is to get my fellow IDists to separate issues of cosmic design from biological design. So you can bet your genes that when I read this post titled: Luskin on gene duplication, I was pleasently surprised.
Copying a pre-existing gene does create new information … but it's just a small
amount. Luskin can't be serious in considering this a weakness: evolutionary
biology would predict only small changes at any one time. If a process produced
a massive increase in the information content of the genome in a biologically
functional way (that is, not just the production of random noise), then we'd
have to say that you've found evidence for Intelligent Design. A succession of
small genetic changes is what we expect from evolution and genetics, and that's
what we see.

One of the things that we would also expect to see from evolution, is a huge diversity of outcomes - and especially - perfection in the resultant phenotypes. This is not what we see in all cases. Life is rife with imperfections and low amounts of genetic diversity (when it comes to certain sequences), which could be hallmarks of design. I know, IDists usually portray the design as perfect, but as I will demonstrate in future posts, the assumption of perfection is not only based on certain philosophical predispositions, but it also contrasts starkly with the available evidence.

Also, on Uncommon Descent, DaveScot also seems to agree with me on this - that "perfect" design, or in the context of the discussion that the following comment is in, the lack of genetic "junk" in the genomes of organisms does not follow necessarily from the design premise. Here's the quote:

I still fail to see how ID predicts no junk DNA. Random mutation definitely
happens and if it’s good at *anything* it’s good at producing unorganized,
non-functional crappola. It can produce crap out of nothing and it’s even better
at making crap out of stuff that wasn’t crap to begin with. (source)

I think we ought to invite DaveScot over to this blog - not only is he an Agnostic, which fits under the theme of this blog, but we might benefit from his perspective on this and other design issues as well. What do you think, William?

Anyway, the quote from PZ Myers is pure gold. Let's spread it around so there can be no doubt that he said it!
If a process produced a massive increase in the information content of the
genome in a biologically functional way (that is, not just the production of
random noise), then we'd have to say that you've found evidence for
Intelligent Design
. -- PZ Myers

Now all we need to do is find evidence of a massive amount of information increase in a genome. No, not the usual "we don't know where all this information came from so it must be design" argument. I mean, evidence of the insertion of that information, specifically what information was inserted, and exactly how to detect it. That's what Intelligent Design can be all about! Anything else is a waste of time.

Monday, September 03, 2007

Dembski/Marks - Article Number One

Please everyone, could we just get back to science, thanks. This is article number one of three. Judging from the critical response(?) these three articles are indeed a "slam dunk." Sharpen your pencils. Roll up your sleeves. Let me know what you think about these articles and their implications for science. Thankyou all in advance for your attention to these papers.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

A 15-second hoax

Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame. Previously, an anonymous person started a blog called The Blindness of Science. Purporting to be a pro-ID atheist, they were promoted by PZ Minors, ridiculed, and came back the next day to say it was all a joke. They lamented that they forgot to also try to get a plug at, and that it was all over and they really weren't what they claimed previously.

Interestingly, the post claiming it was a joke has now been deleted. And replacing it is a post called Backpedaling. The link to the original post is here: Former Page.

The beginning of the text of the post is viewable through This Search.

Those of us who know better just acknowledge the obvious...trial-and-error baby! More evidence...woo-hoo!

Following "Backpedaling," which changed the subject, they wrote one called Predictable:

Evolutionist bloodhounds didn't waste time to attack me after my new post. Apparently their academic-state machine money allows them to spend all day hunting for real freethinkers.

Oh yeah, lets erase the "haha it was all a joke" post and insert a few cliche phrases and call ourselves convincing? None of us are going to buy it anymore.

If you'll look at the hastily-assembled blogger profile of this person, now calling themself "Jesus Elloco," you can see some pretty stereotypical stuff as well.

Methinks that this person didn't think through their little joke and spilled the beans too quickly. Guess that's what happens when you trade your brain in for neo-darwinism. Sense of humor suffers. But the one thing that is strange is that they had the account since May. That's a long time to spend dreaming up a 15-second flop!

I was going to brush it off, even considering that I was excited about getting a community going here at ICON-RIDS, to bounce ideas off one another. However, given that they decided to delete the "joke giveaway" blog post, I decided that I should put up this post to warn anyone who missed it before it was deleted. (Google didn't cache it - strange considering that Google runs blogger)

But there is an upside to it - some of the Darwinists missed it too! Some are arguing against "El Loco" thinking that they are real! Check the comments and you'll see them still going at it.

I'll have to be more careful about taking would-be colleagues as real. I bet they have a real hard time at Uncommon Descent weeding out phonies.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Supernatural Design, Intent of the Designer(s)

Hello folks. I posted this a while back at, and I thought I would further convey my ideas here. Enjoy.

Over at Uncommon Descent, I've gotten involved in an interesting discussion (Link) about whether or not intention is required in detecting design in some cases. I think that it is, and I cited both Michael Behe and William Dembski in support of my position. But what has also become part of the discussion is whether or not the design that ID detects must be supernatural. Can design exist in a materialistic universe? What do you think? Here are some excerpts:
First Comment:
Permit me to disagree with Denyse on the subject of arson - intent is integral in convicting someone of such a crime. Motive, Opportunity, and Means. Behe testified at Dover that ID demonstrates that the designer intended to create the IC structures that we see in living organisms - you are saying that Behe has a Ph.D. in obfusctation, Gil?
Re: GilDodgen
The bottom line is that Darwinism is a 19th-century, puerile, ill-supported, futile attempt to explain away design in nature — especially in living systems, although it is now applied to almost everything from cosmology to psychology — that stares every reasonable person in the face. Materialistic philosophy and its creation myth have been embraced by many (perhaps most) members of the academy simply because this philosophy supports a cultural consensus that design simply cannot exist by definition.
I don’t consider materialistic philosophy to be at odds with design detection, nor the origin of life. After all this time, I haven’t seen anyone offer up evidence that points toward the supernatural. Do you consider the involvement of the supernatural to be testable?
Second Comment:
Re: Littlejon Interesting point, klone. So, if we have you right, are you saying that there sure is design, that emerged from choice that can be defined as intelligence, but is entirely natural? Interesting; does ID have to invoke the supernatural?
Let me articulate myself a little better. One of the reasons why I try to separate cosmic arguments of design from the biological ones, is that if each one is designed, how are we to tell whether they are different designers or the same? Going further, if only one of the two has been designed, the assumption that both must be designed would prevent us from accepting that fact. I also don't think that intelligence itself must be supernatural, either, so one of the options I'm open to is that life could have been designed by non-supernatural entities.
A better question migh also be, does our conception of intelligence require that we treat intelligence as having a supernatural component, or can intelligences be entirely natural?
Re: JosephOnly to the point that every scenario requires something outside of nature to get it started. That includes any anti-ID materialistic scenario.
And the only way to determine if the designer is outside of nature in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question.
Every scenario? If, for example, the appearance of design in this universe is due to the existence of a multiverse, then design in the cosmological sense is not necessary. I would also like to suggest that if you consider intelligence itself as being too improbable or complex to occur without design, but intelligence is necessary to create design, then you have set up a situation where it's turtles all the way down. Anyway, that's one.
So are you saying that all of the unsolved arsons weren’t really arsons at all? Or can we determine arson and THEN set out to try to figure out who and why?
Sometimes being able to separate design from very design-like circumstances, like the sprinkler system example someone else gave above, requires being able to determine the intent of the agent involved.Let me answer your question by quoting Bill Dembski's paper, The Explanatory Filter: (Link)“By selecting the Democrats to head the ballot 40 out of 41 times, Caputo appears to have participated in an event of probability less than 1 in 50 billion. Yet, exceedingly improbable things happen all the time. The crucial question therefore is whether this event is also specified-does this event follow a non-ad hoc pattern so that we can legitimately eliminate chance? But of course, the event is specified: that Caputo is a Democrat, that it is in Caputo’s interest to see the Democrats appear first on the ballot, that Caputo controls the ballot lines, and that Caputo would by chance be expected to assign Republicans top ballot line as often as Democrats all conspire to specify Caputo’s ballot line selections, and render his selections incompatible with chance. No one to whom I have shown this example draws any other conclusion than design, to wit, Caputo cheated.”Clearly, Bill agrees that intent is one component of a diagnostic test of design. Would it still be just as likely to be design if the republicans were put on top? How about instead,
I think that when we can begin to analyze the intent of the designer(s), we can explain sub-optimal designs such as backwards retina. Likely because of the religious predispositions of many of the commenters here, I haven't heard one person suggest that there can possibly be a flaw in the designs. Aren't we supposed to follow the evidence where it leads? I'm working on an essay about the subject, but I don't know how long it will take me to finish it. I might submit it to one of the contributors here or start my own blog or something. I'm very interested in this issue, and I hope to contribute to ID in my own way.
Note: No one has demonstrated a way to test or confirm that any of the designs in question are supernatural in origin. Yet, that is something that many ID supporters believe.

Interestingly enough, rather than propose a way to test supernatural design, people subtracted points from my blog post. That was my last post at, because it became apparent to me that the community being created there was going to squelch alternate views, and would be a stumbling block to getting people to discuss my ideas and get involved in really thinking about design detection. One person did respond, asking if I had considered that the designs had been degraded by material mechanisms. But even then, it didn't seem that they were willing to consider that any of the designs were sub-optimal from the start.

So, to address this issue, for one of my next posts, I intend to write about the issue of sub-optimal designs, and how those can be used for design detection, and what implications sub-optimal design may have for the nature of the designer(s).

Friday, July 13, 2007

"New" Dembski/Marks Papers at New EI Lab

These papers have actually been available for more than a month now. What is missing is the rapid responses from ID critics that usually follow from William Dembski's publications.

Note added: 7/08
The EI lab has been expelled from Baylor but can still be

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Reply To Mark Chu Carroll: Part One -- Could our universe be "ordered by pure chance?"

Thanks to a comment and link from William Dembski a few weeks ago I suddenly became famous (well sort of). As a result of my new found fame a blogger and mathematician named Mark Chu Carroll decided to critique a three part article of mine (from 2002), saying among other things..

MCC -...The paper is a mess. It purports to try to address problems with the second law of thermodynamics in a way that shows that the universe must have a creator. The catch, though, is that his argument for why there's something wrong with the second law is pure rubbish. But I'm getting ahead of myself..

WB- Stephen Hawking claims (In Brief History of time {Pg. 103 pb.}) that there is "something wrong" with the Second Law saying that the law "does not hold always." My efforts in parts 2 and 3 from 2002 were directed toward finding a real Second law that does indeed "hold always" even at the molecular/atomic level. The first section (from 1996) seeks to establish the "absolute certainty" of the Second Law at the cosmic level thereby overcoming (at the cosmic level) -- the problem Hawking is alluding to in his book. An added consequence of this first argument however is cosmological incompleteness. "Part One" of the article was written in 1996 and originally published under the name “Hawking’s Error – Consequences of the Correction” in the now defunct ISJ("Internet Science Journal").

MCC-...His major section is what he calls "The Physical Incompleteness Theorem". It's basically just another version of something vaguely Dembski-ish: an argument that order can't arise from randomness, therefore there must be something that created order…

WB- My initial argument/claim was indeed “that order(constraint) can’t arise from randomness(the absence of constraint).” I also claimed that light (photons) cannot arise from darkness (the absence of photons). What is needed instead is a source of order and a source of light respectively.

MCC- .."By 'pure chance' (talking about strings in an alphabet), most people would probabaly mean a uniform distribution - that is, all possible sequences of characters are equally represented."

WB -- Which (as it turns out) is precisely what I mean. If "all possible sequences of characters are equally represented” by system definition then "monkey shakespeare" (being one of the possible sequences) will be "equally represented" (and is therefore bound {ordered by the system parameters} to appear).

MCC-The only way that the restriction to an alphabet makes a difference is if we're trying to measure the quantity of information represented by the string. And then the alphabet matters - but only in a way unimportant for Brookfield's argument: the larger the alphabet, the more information contained in a random string of characters.

WB - There is no information contained in a random string of letters. "Randomness" is by definition the absence of order/information. The word "information" is based on the root word "form" and is synonymous with the word "order" the opposite of "randomness."

MCC - The entire use of "order" is a fabrication - and the entire argument based on it is wretchedly bad. If you look at Hawkings argument, and translate it into Brookfield's terms: suppose you have an infinite number of infinite sequences of numbers. Most of those sequences will be chaotic - there won't be any discernable patterns or structures. But within that infinite set, there are some sequences that are monotonically increasing; there will be some that consist of lists of increasing subsequences. Most won't - but some will. Brookfield is arguing that in randomly generated sequences - truly random ones - you can't get an ordered pattern, ever.

WB - Luckily, I happen to be actually be Brookfield, so I can explain what my real argument is/was. In McC's example Monotonically Increasing Sequences (MIS) are members of the "system set" (see page #4 fig #1). Given "an infinite number of infinite sequences of numbers" monotonically increasing sequences (MIS) will not only occur, but they are certain to occur. Contra Mark Chu, my claim is not that you can't get monotonically increasing sequences "order" but instead that their frequency-of-appearance will fail to diverge from the uniform probability distribution (randomness). Without a divergence from randomness there is no internal order/information here at all. Such rare internal states may appear to be more ordered than other sequences (to Hawking and Mark Chu) but this is an illusion.

MCC - could be inside an enclosing infinite system, or outside of an enclosing infinite system. But either way, it's totally bogus: it's still based on that awful "order can't come from randomness".

WB - Hawking's monkey shakespeare is an attempt to use endogenous system-level order (that utterly fails to diverge from the uniform probability distribution{randomness})as an example of order (probabilistic divergence) from randomness (non-divergence). So once again I must make "that awful claim" that "order cannot come from randomness." In Hawking's (and Mark's) example "order" has not "come from randomness." Order has not been produced "by pure chance." These rare sequences are predetermined (forced/ordered) to appear by the pre-existing probabilistic structure (order) of the systems in question -- just as jackpots in a fair (random) slot machine are predetermined by the pre-existing structure (order) of the machine.

Internal to the system, MS and MIS are not order(not divergences) at all. Internally, they are just randomness. External to the system they are synonymous with the system-level order. Alphabet systems (order) and number systems (order) represent system level divergences (order) that are intelligently designed (by humans). In order to understand cosmological incompleteness, external system-level order must not be confused with internal information (order) being expressed in and through such pre-existing systems. Internally speaking, order has not come by pure chance (randomness) only randomness has come from randomness (R-->R). Externally speaking, system level order (including MS & Mis) and their attendant probabilities have come with the establishment of the system (order) -- thus we have order from order (O-->O). What Hawking and Mark Chu want, but have not provided is an example of R-->O (order being produced by chance/randomness).

Real Shakespeare has real meaning and appears in our world and our libraries at a frequency that defies randomness. The simple law of spelling that requires that "U" must always follow "Q" is a divergence from randomness. "Monkey shakespeare" on the other hand, is utterly devoid of any laws of spelling, grammar and syntax etc. Any cosmological model based upon such lawlessness would undermine not only science but our entire technological civilization. Just as with the laws of grammar that are not illusions, the laws of physics are not illusions.

Monday, June 25, 2007

Ambiguity about Atheism at UD

(Reminded by this post) Okay so I just started up blogging here, and William Dembski, ID proponent, gave this blog a plug on his website, Uncommon Descent:
It will be interesting to see how the National Center for Science Education Selling Evolution deals with the growing number of non-religious ID proponents.

It is heartening to see Dr. Dembski give the non-religious supporters of ID a thumbs-up. However, only a few posts later, he turns right around:
The European Council for the Advancement of Atheism

The Council of Europe may justly be renamed as “The European Council for the Advancement of Atheism.” To believe in a God who acts in the world (aka theism) henceforward constitutes “religious extremism.” It will be interesting to see at what point advocacy of ID is regarded in Europe as a “hate crime” against … science? … society? … humanity?
Oh, your’re wondering what this is all about. Check out the following report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the CU (

In case you read through the long passage quoted, it said nothing about atheism. Instead, it labeled Intelligent Design as nothing but a creationist (hah) movement. I'll admit, ID has its roots amongst a group of Christians, however it codifies ideas that are distinct from religious concepts. Here you have two nonreligious bloggers already, writing about ID from a non-religious perspective. Something that Dr Dembski finds encouraging. And more will come.
However, what I don't understand is the apparent duplicitousness. Moments after patting William (Brookfield) on the back, Dr. Dembski uses the "atheism" label to insult the albeit misguided Council of Europe. In my opinion, you can't have it both ways.
I would like to take this moment to note that belief in a creator-god does not equal belief in Intelligent Design. This is a fact that I know Dr. Dembski agrees with. You can believe in a god and be against ID - you can even believe that this god interacts with matter in this universe, however, religious anti-IDists (or religious darwinists) will say that the actions of this god are supernatural, and thus not verifiable scientifically. Thus, a philosophical topic. You can be non-theistic and also be a supporter of ID.
So to call them atheists because they don't care for ID is not only logically unfounded, emotionally charged and stereotypically-based, it works against every effort that Dr. Dembski and other IDists have tried to make to show that ID is not a religious idea but instead a scientific one. And it also alienates those who you seek to attract to your fold.
So what do you think, readers, should the anti-atheist rhetoric be thrown out of the ID movement of is it here to stay? Allow me to suggest that if the polls are to be trusted, then religious darwinists outnumber the nonreligious by at least 3 to 1. Think about that.
(Before everyone jumps on the numbers, I'm assuming 10% of the population is non-religious, and that 40% of the population in one form or another accepts darwinism. Now you can cook the numbers and suggest that only atheists truly accept darwinism, but I'm going off of the polls that allow religious people to agree with evolution without neccessitating that they abandon their religious beliefs in answering the questions.)

Sunday, June 24, 2007

2007 Shift Report - "Evidence of a World Transforming"

"We are living through one of the most fundamental shifts in history — a change in the actual belief structure of Western society. No economic, political, or military power can compare with the power of a change of mind. By deliberately changing their images of reality, people are changing the world."

— Willis Harman, Global Mind Change

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Repost: An Atheist in support of ID

This was the first post that I made on, and so I thought it would be fitting to repost it here so a wider audience could read and consider it.

In the scientific debate over the origins and patterns of life over the years, it is often claimed that evolution is propped up by atheists, and ID is propped up by theists alone. There are theists in support of evolution, but what about atheists who support ID? I'm one.
I wanted to get this right out there, seeing how this is a new community and I plan to contribute as much as I can to shape the discussion. Over the next month, I hope to elaborate more on my positions (and lack of positions) on Evo/ID issues, but the first one I wanted to bring up for everyone's mutual digestion is the pidgeon-holing of the debate into religious terms.
First, I would like to object to the statements made by non-believers that ID amounts to nothing more than a religious argument dressed up in scientific language. Information theory, biochemistry, and engineering - these are hardly religious concepts. Fields such as Archaeology can conclude that design has taken place, in the case of human artifacts, but the keep-away-from-biology wagon-circle that they put up to design detection methods reveals that they are afraid of theism leaking into biology. Why?
ID proponents are currently mostly religious, and currently mostly Christians. This is to be expected because of the origins of the theory. If ID was formulated in Saudi Arabia, we would be debating the islamic origins of ID, and if it was invented in Atheist/Communist China, the debate would be of a whole different flavor.
What could be some of the causes of this? For one thing, religious beliefs are strongly correlated with interest in ID. Many religious groups, people, and churches promote ID within their organizations and communities. Many people conflate the designer(s) with their notion of a god, and give their support to it for the wrong reasons. In this, a lot of ID supporters are guilty.
Its the same thing as when atheists believe in evolution because they believe it eliminates the need for a god.
The issue should be the evidence for or against particular theories, and not the theological (or political) implications of those theories. It is difficult to keep the debate on scientific terms, and both sides can be blamed for that.
What are we to do as ID supporters? For one thing, I think we should stop painting ID with supernatural colors. This wins supporters in some groups, but creates enemies in others. Just as evolution has no bearing on whether or not there is a god, neither should ID. Many pseudo-ID groups (such as Reasons to Believe) have latched onto the Designer notion and proclaimed that it is the Christian God, and this harms the movement's scientific mission.
Religious and non-religious scientists alike should find this notion attractive. For instance, just as there are immensely complicated, fine-tuned, and beneficial systems in cells that may have been designed, there may also be simple systems, sub-optimal, and even malicious systems in cells that may have been designed. For theists that believe in a benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God, such systems may be ignored because they do not fit into their theological presuppositions.
Sub-optimal, simple, or malicious design may be wrongly attributed to evolution or the break-down of a more perfectly designed system, or even ignored. I have heard Michael Behe describe his personal view of the Type-III Secretory System in that it was designed - a structure that helps bacterial pathogens kill eukaryotic cells in diseases such as the bubonic plague. Many theists are loathe to consider the TTSS as being designed because it seems to be a malicious design. If a scientist created such a thing and unleashed in upon the world, we would declare them a terrorist. So many people conclude that it must have been a flagellum that broke down to the structure that we see today to avoid the theological issues that come with their assumption that the designer(s) must be benevolent.
Perfect design is also assumed, and this leads to strong arguments against design, and weaker-than-possible arguments for design. Anti-IDists bring up cases up sub-optimal design as an argument against ID, and the usual response from ID supporters is to try to explain how it must be optimal somehow, and this can lead to laughable rationalizations. But couldn't there be cases of structures in biological organisms that meet the characteristics of being designed, but are sub-optimal or inefficient? Only when you assume that the designer(s) has/have/had perfect knowledge and ability will the design be assumed to be perfect in all aspects. (For instance, if the flagellum did break down to produce the TTSS, and if the designer was believed to be an all-knowing deity, wouldn't it have still foreseen that and you would be compelled to conclude that the flagellum should have been designed in another way as to prevent that breakdown? Again, assumptions are in play.)
If we can conclude that the entity or entities (theological presuppositions also lead people to describe the Designer in s singular and also capitalized) that did the designing was/were intelligent, then we can learn about other aspects of it or them. (notice how many describe it as a "he" as well) For example, how intelligent? How knowledgeable were they of natural law, how much could they predict about the future? What can we surmise that they did not understand when structures within biological organisms were being designed? If you cringe about the prospect that the designer(s) could have had less than perfect knowledge about the universe, then you are assuming that this is a deity, which is your own theological assumption that you bring to the table.
I've given a few examples here, and I hope to elaborate on this some more over time. I've pointed to a few aspects of the language that we use to describe ID and how this gives fuel to the Trojan Horse of Creationism fire that gets tossed onto ID. I think that if you tie your notion of a creator-god to the design we find in biological systems, then there are difficult questions that will do more harm to (and might be considered blasphemous to) your religious beliefs than any notion of biological evolution ever could. So there is good reason to separate ID from your religious beliefs as well.
You many not agree with me, in which case we could continue the dialogue over the coming weeks, months, years, and however long it takes for ID to become accepted and not discriminated against for imagined theological reasons. You might want to attack me for not being religious, but remember, theists and atheists alike believe in evolution, despite the lack of evidence, because they agree on scientific grounds. I'm an atheist, so you would think that I should believe in evolution by default. But there is much that we do not understand in this universe, and evolution does not help us understand the most complicated aspects of biology, and it is a poor substitute for a real scientific theory. That's something that I think we can all agree on, and to stave off any anti-atheist attacks I may get, I would like to say that if this is to become the important scientific movement of this century, it has to be about the science, and nothing but the science. Let's leave our theological assumptions at the door.
Thanks for reading.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Enter the Klone


I'm EJ Klone, and I thought I would say a little hello to everyone. I've been lurking around the science blogosphere, commenting here and there, absorbing it all in, and asking a few questions. I then found myself on, writing a few posts, which got me mixed reviews. You see, when I told everyone that I supported Intelligent Design, as an atheist, folks gave me props. But then when I question the idea that the designer(s) of biological organisms is/are supernatural, I was roundly criticized.

William Brookfield noticed my posts, and invited me on to his blog, here, and his recent attention reminded me of his offer. So here I am now, ready to shake a few foundations.

You see, I think there's a huge nugget of wisdom in this design concept, and I think it has the potential to reshape the way we view everything in much the same way that Darwin did in his day. But more so.

However, if ID is going to be the scientific framework that it should be, the ID community is going to need to shake itself of its presuppositions. Let me give you a short list of what's to come, and try to think about how ID has come to approach each of these issues:
  • Singular designer vs multiple designers
  • Supernatural designers vs natural designers
  • Design flaws vs design perfection
  • Intentional design vs accidental design
  • Same designer(s) for living organisms and the universe itself?
  • Common descent vs common design - are these even mutually exclusive categories?

And together, we shall put an end to this uber-Darwinian magical nonsense. Hope you'll stick around for the show!

Thanks, one and all for your interest!

Wow! Thank you William Dembski for making my site famous :) (or infamous if you prefer)

This site is a proposed International coalition of non-religious ID scientists/scholars/supporters. I have put out this blog looking for others like me, who are interested in origins science, but are not at all religious.
It is not appropriate to exclude anyone from science on the basis of religion. It is not my intention with this site to exclude the religious. However, it does seem necessary at this time to establish a loose coalition of non-religious ID proponents in order to stand up for academic freedom of inquiry for *all* scientists (religious and non-religious alike).

Unfortunately there have been lots of inaccurate statements on various blogs about this site and my ideas. As a general rule of thumb it is always good to avoid spin and go to the source to find out what is actually being said.

For instance this commment posted by Posted by: Oleg Tchernyshyov June 16, 2007 10:14 PM : at "Stranger Fruit"

"Brookfield is also the author of a delightfully silly paper
In Search of a Cosmic Super-Law: The Supreme "Second law" of
Devolution. One of the highlights of this work is a
suggestion to replace the 2nd law of thermodynamics with
Murphy's law. I am not kidding."

I am not proposing the replacement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with Murphy's law. I am proposing that both the Second Law of thermodynamics and the Second law of Black hole dynamics be treated as laws of information loss. I am proposing that the entire universe be treated -- not as a material universe/structure -- but as an information structure -- and that this model in turn will provide a new map of the core of a black hole singularity -- a model in which the core's area (surface) is directly proportional to the entropy.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

"God Exists!- A Formula Proves It!"

Here a video regarding Frank Tipler's work. This video was originally posted on You-Tube by atheist (Josh Charles) racking up numerous "honors" and links. I found it posted on Richard Dawkins' site, but when I started explaining my take on Tipler's work (in the You-tube video's "comments" section) Josh suddenly removed the video (after first threatening to ban me). This act suddenly destroyed a very large number of pages of viewer comments including my own final (and apparently finalizing) comment.

Watch a slightly different version here..

The bottom line is that given the ideologically charged society in which we live, you cannot merely scientifically prove the existence of God and then notify the scientists (they will just dismiss you as a "kook"{PZ Myers} or a "wingnut"{Richard Dawkins}). The trick is to submit it and have it scientifically published (say, in the journal Nature {in 1979}) and scientifically verified (say in, Communications in Mathematical Physics - 1980), long before the scientific community realizes what it is -- and their (otherwise-operative) brains become clouded by ideology.

There are two questions I wish to raise here;

#1. Is there really sufficient "bandwidth" for the scientific processing of a God-proof given the sociological, God vrs Anti-God, passions in the scientific community? Who can the people really trust? Clearly You-tube (w/Josh who tagged the video "stupid") lacked sufficient "bandwidth" for any respectful scientific comentary. Can we expect any better from Richard Dawkins and his "Wingnut News"?

If Richard Dawkins is indeed "The Oxford Professor of the Public Understanding of Science/Logic/Reason" then why does he maintain an entire category at his web site, that is itself a fallacy of logical argumentation!? The term "Wingnut" (just as with PZ Myers term {and category} "Kooks") is an ad hominum violation of logic. Such terminology is being directed, not at Tipler's arguments/science/logic but at Tipler himself. "Ad hominum" is latin for attacking the man/person instead of addressing the person's argument(s). If you wish to undermine science, then violate logic/reason while pretending to be a champion of reason.

#2. Can Tipler's 1979 General Relativistic No-recurrence proof/theorem (proving that short of divine intervention the universe cannot re-occur) be more economically stated as a no-occurence theorem (proving that short of divine intervention the universe cannot occur period)?...

See - Tipler Frank J. 1979 "General Relativity, Thermodynamics and the Poincare Cycle." Nature: 280 203-5.

BTW. I don't, by any means, agree with all (or even most) of Tipler's arguments. For instance, I disagree with Tipler's main argument in his 1994 book "The Physics Of Immortality." I just don't condone the use ad hominum (personal attack) as a means of "scientific" persuation and I maintain that his published relativity and its implications should be seriously considered. Tipler has a Phd in global general relativity. --WB

Friday, April 13, 2007

The Kindness "Konnection"

My latest article can be found here... The Kindness "Konnection"
(enblogged here in order to permit comments)