Enter the Klone

Hello!

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 www.overwhelmingevidence.com, 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.

"Massive Study Shreds (Darwinian) Assumptions About DNA"

"The findings — from a massive project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today — confirm growing suspicions that the vast stretches of so- called 'junk DNA' flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all." -The Vancouver Sun, June 14, 2007

See also http://" Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle" By Rick Weiss; Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 14, 2007;

A (growing!)list of related articles.

National Post Article

"New Findings Challenge Established Views" - Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070613131932.htm

The National Institute of Health..
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun2007/nhgri-13.htm
http://www.genome.gov/25521554

"God Exists!- A Formula Proves It!"

Here ..is 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..
http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=18130@ktvt.dayport.com&cid=7

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

The Kindness "Konnection"

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

Smithsonian Scandal & the Scientific Solution(pdf)

This article can be found here.. SmithsonianScandalSolution.pdf

The Congressional Report

More information at..
http://www.geocities.com/fiddleboy2003/Bitscience.htm

or..here (more info & appendix).

Darwinism is a Hoax!

Hello everyone, I am William Brookfield founder of ICON-RIDS. I am an ID evolutionist not a Darwinian evolutionist.

The first order of business here is Darwin's mechanism of speciation. This mechanism is a hoax. Both natural selective destruction and randomization (RM) are destruction functions. It is not logically possible for a destruction(-) functions to produce new construction (biological or otherwise). It is not logically possible for new structures (+) to arise by destructive (-) agents. Darwin's thesis regarding the "origin (construction) of new species (new structure) by means of natural selection" (selective destruction) is thus logically and causally bankrupt.

The normal course of argument taken by Darwinists at this point is to claim that any such doubts about Darwinism are "religiously motivated" and therefore beneath consideration. This isn't going to work here.

After 150 years of Darwinian obfuscation, it is time for humanity to take back its power and rid itself forever of this hoax.

Charles Darwin (quoted from) On the Origin of the Species, by means of Natural Selection -- 1859

"[The]preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest." -- C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species -Ch#4 Natural Selection

"Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good". -- C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species -- Ch#4 Natural Selection

Comments:

Darwin's "preservation of all that is good" assumes the design of a vehicle capable of carrying forward "all that is good." This "preserving all that is good" occurs in utter defiance of the thermodynamic gradient -- that by law (2nd law) destroys all that is "good." The more "good" to be carried forward, the better designed this living and reproductive vehicle (species) has to be. Arguments against design cannot just assume design. What Darwinists have provided is merely Natural Selective Destruction (destructive filtration) plus a worthless and obfusctating circular argument pertaining to the "good."

----

"Macro-evolution" is an extrapolation of "micro-evolution." Microevolution" in turn, is dependent upon each species' flexibility. This flexibility/adaptability, is itself a positive design attribute that requires an explanation. Galapagos finches that would immediately choke and die on the first drought-hardened seeds are easy to design compared to Galapagos finches that can adapt and survive in the face of countless environmental assaults. A computer program that can barely run in a single computer environment is far easier to design than a program that can itself adapt, self correct and thrive in countless computer environments (PC, MAC, Unix, Atari etc.,) If living species were more poorly designed they would immediately drop dead in response to the slightest environmental change -- and there would be no Darwinian "evolution." The genetic information corresponding to every single environmental change has to be in place before any organism can "evolve" in response to selective pressure. Darwinian theory therefore, has no validity of its own and is wholly parasitic upon exquisitely competent design. The bottom line is that adaptable species are exponentially more information-rich than species that are not adaptable. Thus, all of the "evidence of evolution" (peppered moths, bacterial antbiotic resistance etc.) is in fact evidence for design. -- WB