/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6446116

In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the “explanatory filter,” a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or object is the product of intelligence, then it will

1. Be contingent
2. Be complex
3. Display an independently specified pattern

Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must also conform to an independently specified pattern.

Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?

>>5335432
maybe it was a slow meteor

I think you're forgetting the ozone holes, which also fall under climate change, those are certainly not natural, and are having very adverse effects on people and wildlife living below them. skin cancer in fish, for example.
Now you can say that the current climate are not "out of bounds" when they were related to say, the Paleozoic era, which had a much higher concentration of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere, but with our current positions in relation to the sun, the global temperatures should not be as high as they are, unless there has been a shift in atmospheric conditions during our history of measuring atmospheric temperatures.
we are able to see evidence of this shift in the northern arctic windstream, which usually brings cool air from the north over canada and the northern states, and warmer air up south over europe. Lately this windstream has been shifting wildly, which, contrary to your belief, is certainly not normal. this has been the cause for "snowmaggedon" in Europe and the unusually mild winter this last year.

hey /sci/
I was thinking of majoring in business or economics, but I can't really decide. I figure you guys know the sciences better than most people, so can you tell me which of those would be a better major?

>>3958243

>that picture

Yeah, what the deal with nudity? It's most definitely not universal, as some cultures have no problem walking around naked.

>geography

>>2325154
nerds

To be honest, I'm just glad they're getting it official, on the books, that Copernicus and Galileo did something great, instead of fucking up their middle age control over everything. It's not going to change anything really, but it's nice to know that a few hundred years from now people will have it on the record that the church admits to fucking up.