Here's the link to the latest draft of an article I'm prepping to refute Perry S. Marshall's ludicrous arguments on information theory.

Although not complete, I offer it here for checking and your comments: particularly to make sure that my own ignorance of something important doesn't drop me in hot water. Further articles for the site are welcome - each author has their own page.


Please read it before commenting. This is the first in a series and peer review is important to make sure we get them all right.

Views: 435

Replies to This Discussion

I think their is a fallacy in the "evolution needs fancy computation to model it, so it must be designed" and a simple error.

First off, just because something is difficult to model doesn't make it designed. That is a bald-faced assertion that has no evidence to back it up. You can't get from "complex things need to be designed" to "everything is designed" without saying everything is complex, which is basically saying "science is hard."

If that is the position you want to go with, then go home and give up on science. But don't try and bring science down to your argument from ignorance.

Secondly, evolution isn't actually complex. You only need fancy computers when modeling all the molecular actions going on during evolutionary events. Someone please show me an accurate computer model of molecular events that isn't complicated. Again, we are back to "everything is complex, therefore I don't understand it so it must be designed." Evolution on the genotype level can be modeled with simple Hardy-Weinberg based algebraic equations. As long as you don't try to model the millions of molecular actions, you don't have to get complex.

Arguments from ignorance are not science, they are its antithesis, and that's what his "arguments" boil down to in the end.
The piece I've presented (at draft stage) expands on this. Have you seen it yet?

What I'm aiming for in the book and on the site is a pop-science view refutation.

I'd agree that evolution isn't that hard (as a basic idea) but the mechanics are: hence the analogy to the model airliner.
Let's take it from as simple as it gets.

How and why did a particular collection of inanimate matter change into a self-replicating life form?

And why would anything self-replicate?
That's abiogenesis - not evolution Heidi.

Please refer to the paper/article I've filed it does make this very clear and that should get Stephan (and others) of your back.
Oh sorry, I mean piece like an article - I'd love to have you as a featured contributor like Ed Waugh. Just in case anyone missed it, Ed's piece is here:


But there's no link from the front page - Google will catch it of course. You can also see any articles that Ed has filed at his page here:


and each guest writer gets their own permalinked page. If you look at the URL you'll see Ed's piece is under the opinion section whereas my bit is under "drafts" as it's not yet complete.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service