Science and Culture Today Discovering Design in Nature

Science and Culture Today | Page 1196 | Discovering Design in Nature

bill-with-american-dollars-on-table-stockpack-adobe-stock-76595814-stockpack-adobestock
Bill With American Dollars On Table
Image Credit: Andrey Popov - Adobe Stock

William Dembski and Robert Marks Publish (Another) Peer-Reviewed Scientific Paper Supporting No Free Lunch Theorems

A peer-reviewed scientific paper published in 2010 by William Dembski and Robert Marks of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab supports no free lunch theorems. Published in Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics and titled “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” the paper’s abstract states that unless one has information about a target, search engines often fail: “Needle-in-the-haystack problems look for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search stands no hope of success.” Their principle of Conservation of Information holds that “any search technique will work, on average, as well as blind search.” However, in such a case “[s]uccess requires an assisted search. But whence the assistance required for a Read More ›

successful-result-of-artificial-insemination-of-a-woman-mira-810750405-stockpack-adobestock
Successful result of artificial insemination of a woman. Miracle of Modern Medicine: IVF. Little human baby inside mother womb. Small embryo in uterus.
Image Credit: Daria Lukoiko - Adobe Stock

In Which I Answer Tantalus Prime’s Queries About Abortion

Tantalus Prime is a graduate student in neuroscience. He’s been following my debate about abortion with Joshua Rosenau of the NCSE. He asks some questions about my views on the right to life that are worth answering. Tantulus: Egnor asserts that humanity is a discrete, not a continuous variable. If so, then would he kindly point to the exact point at which the human begins? After all, fertilization itself is a multi-step process. So, where is it? When the sperm breaches the oocyte membrane? Formation of the pro-nuclei? Initial DNA replication? Degeneration of the pro-nuclei membrane? Formation of the mitotic spindle? Fusion of the chromosomes? Division of the chromosomes and formation of the first daughter cells? This really should be Read More ›

Pro-Intelligent Design Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper Argues for an “Engineered World”

A pro-intelligent design peer-reviewed scientific paper has been published in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics by Dominic Halsmer, a signer of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and Dean of the College of Science and Engineering at Oral Roberts University. Titled “The Coherence of an Engineered World,” the review article looks at various facets of the natural world, particularly instances of cosmic fine-tuning, and argues that it is “engineered.” One reason the authors feel the universe is engineered is the fact that it is mathematically and scientifically comprehensible. Human-engineered systems are characterized by stability, predictability, reliability, transparency, controllability, efficiency, and (ideally) optimality. These features are also prevalent throughout the natural systems that make up the cosmos. However, Read More ›

Eugenie Scott Endorses Discrimination Against Darwin-Doubting Scientists

We’ve previously reported on the case of Martin Gaskell (here, here, here), an astronomer who was denied a job at the University of Kentucky (UK) due to perceived sympathy for “creationism.” In reality. Gaskell is no creationist, and calls himself an “old earth theistic evolutionist” who has “no trouble with the natural selection process.” Gaskell alarmed the Darwinian thought police at UK because in online notes from a talk, he favorably cites the works of proponents of intelligent design like Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson, and states, “there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory,” and “these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses.” In his deposition testimony he further stated that “when it comes Read More ›

3d-rendered-medically-accurate-illustration-of-a-bacteriopha-225315049-stockpack-adobestock
3d rendered medically accurate illustration of a bacteriophage on a bacteria
Image Credit: Sebastian Kaulitzki - Adobe Stock

More From Jerry Coyne

We should not automatically assume that the occurrence of duplicated and diverged genes in nature happened by unguided, Darwinian processes. Read More ›
close-up-of-a-fruit-fly-fruit-fly-vinegar-fly-drosophila-mel-1228977384-stockpack-adobestock
Close-up of a fruit fly, fruit fly, vinegar fly (Drosophila Melanogaster) on apple, AI generated
Image Credit: Chiara Battaglia/imageBROKER - Adobe Stock

Praised be Darwin! Do Fruit Flies Bust Behe?

Fruit flies are a cherished subject of such investigations because of their rapid reproduction, going from birth to death in thirty days. Read More ›

BIO-Complexity Publishes Article Answering Critics Who Promote Tom Schneider’s “ev” Simulation

Over the years William Dembski's critics have accused him of allegedly not doing research. A few years back, Wesley Elsberry and Jeff Shallit published a response to Dembski which charged that "intelligent design advocates have produced many popular books, but essentially no scientific research." Given how much peer-reviewed research Dembski himself has published in the field of evolutionary computation, these criticisms are not credible and hardly worth mentioning. On the other hand, some of Dembski's harshest critics, such as Jeffrey Shallit, are smart guys that have published extensively in mathematics journals but have not cracked into the literature relevant to this field of evolutionary computation. Is it appropriate for Shallit to posture himself as a prestigious academic critic of Dembski when he has not published in the relevant scientific literature? Read More ›

Help Support Discovery Institute in 2010

Evolution News & Views comes to you as a service of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which produces other online media, such as ID the Future, the podcast about evolution and intelligent design, and websites like IntelligentDesign.org and FaithandEvolution.org, where videos, articles, and other resources are available and accessible. We’ve had a busy and memorable year, and we couldn’t have done it without support from readers like you. Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture is a nonprofit 501(c)3, and looking ahead we know that the next year will be a great one as intelligent design continues to advance as a theory — but we will need your help. Please consider partnering with us, whether it be as Read More ›

Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design: I Wish Gallup Would Ask More Precise Questions

Gallup has just released its most recent poll (conducted annually I believe) describing Americans’ views on the origin of humanity. This year, according to Gallup, the numbers have changed slightly:

PRINCETON, NJ — Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God’s involvement.

So what question did they ask to get these results? Here it is:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your of the development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

Since they’ve asked the question this way for years, it makes sense, for statistical accuracy, that they stick with the original wording. But the wording is still problematic, and for an obvious reason–the three options are not jointly exhaustive. Millions of people hold views that are not captured by the three options.

Read More ›

© Discovery Institute