17 January 2010
Well, here are three of the top ten winner stories, and I have inserted some comments, with further stories to follow if you click on the link:
1. Authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II use computer simulations and information theory to challenge the ability of Darwinian processes to create new functional genetic information. This paper is in many ways a validation of Dembski’s core No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without intelligence, which argued that some intelligent input is required to produce novel complex and specified information.
[About time someone said the obvious. Darwinism does not work, Never has, never will. Kept alive by a taxpayer-funded, court-supported Darwin industry that is nearly a century old. A shame and a scandal, and a waste of tax money. For the moment, I will set aside the completely ridiculous quasi-religious obsequies paid to Darwin. It got so bad that Darwin was compared to Lincoln. And while we are here, Dawkins claims he cannot produce an original statement of his big no-design theory - though professionals associated with the goals of this site reconstructed it - and it doesn't work.
Like I said at the time - I own Highway 400 all the way up to the TransCanada - but I don't have the documents and don't know what I can tell you - which is what Dawkins said in response to their enquiries.
Note: I do not claim to personally own any part of the highway systems of Canada. It was only a jest in my case. I don't know what it was in Dawkins's case. That's the trouble. Does he have the goods or not?]
2. June of this year. Dan Peterson, in a review of Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009) in the September 2009 issue of Spectator question of whether life is a product of unthinking matter or of an intelligent mind” and “this book is an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read”. In a series of university lectures and debates in the second half of the year Meyer defended his thesis that the information content in DNA and the biological machinery that processes that information is positive evidence for intelligent design. A companion three-minute animated video, visual illustration of Meyer’s points.
(Again, about time someone said the obvious. About the vid, you can see it here at UD. It comes up regularly in the queue.)
3. The Collectivist Revolution in Biology. An essay by Mark Buchanan in the August issue of Nature announced the breaking with “many of the presuppositions of traditional evolutionary thinking.”
He highlighted its message with these words: “A coming revolution may go so far as to unseat Darwinian evolution as the key explanatory process in biology.” The essay is a contribution to crossdisciplinary thinking starting with an awareness of collective phenomena in modern physics.
[Well, you'd hope so, right? There are underlying principles of life, and they are based on design. If some profs need another job or could just retire on a pension, whose fault is that?
Look, we all pay for the Darwin rubbish whether it is about why men cheat on their wives or why women cheat on their husbands (because apes did it, supposedly, at some point? Who knows?). We pay for it anyway, and we read the resulting nonsense in the Sunday papers.
That is the one single point of which I am reasonably, absolutely sure: We pay for it.
I cannot see a bit of good it has ever done anyone.
And I do not claim to know where this collapsing heap of nonsense will finally descend - that'd be useful info because it is where we can begin the rescue efforts.
Go here for more. ]