Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The intriguing beak of the earliest known pelican

Although geographically widespread, the genus Pelecanus has only 7 or 8 species extant (depending on the classification system used). A similar number of fossil species have been identified, although the morphological differences are quite small. Until recently, the earliest fossil form was dated as Early Miocene. Newly published work pushed the first appearance back to the Early Oligocene, considered to be about 30 million years old. The point of interest for us is that the fossil, and specifically the beak, is said to be “morphologically identical to modern pelicans”. “All these characteristics of the fossil are identical to those of the species in Pelecanus, the single extant genus in the family. [. . .] Therefore, [the specimen] can be considered Read More ›

The “H” in Evolution

Evolutionists say it is a fact that all of biology just happened to arise by accident, and they harshly criticize those who do not agree. But with amazing consistency their criticism is hypocritical—it applies to evolutionary thinking. Consider this recent paper about creationist movements:  Read more

Dennett’s Strange Idea is a Bad Idea for Recognizing Biological Function

Question:

When does adaptationism stop being a useful research strategy and start being a silly exercise?

Allen Orr
Dennett’s Strange Idea

Answer: pretty much all the time.

In Dennett’s book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea Dennett argued:

“[Darwinism] eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.”

But in my earlier blog posting Survival of the Sickest, Why We Need Diseases, I put forward reasons why Darwin’s “revolutionized world-view” perverts and twists reality. This “revolutionized world-view” goes against accepted conventions in medical science and Systems Biology.
Read More ›

O’Leary’s favourite science books

This question started out as “science and religion” but the religion part got lost somehow, not because I am unreligious but because I wasn’t sure how much religion, as such, you can learn from a serious exposition of the reasons for thinking that design is a feature of our universe.

All you can really learn from books about design is that materialist atheism is nuts. And, not surprisingly, all the materialist atheist mooches and tax burdens do everything they can to try to sink design friendly books in the ratings. Don’t usually succeed, of course, but can’t blame ’em for trying.

Anyway, here are my five top picks (exempting any book for which – so far as I know – I had anything to do with the text): Read More ›

My favorite science-religion books

In response to Thomas Cudworth’s request, these are the five science-religion books that I would recommend, or at least has influenced me the most — and help to explain my distinctive take on ID. You’ll see that some of these are available free on-line. Since my explanations are long-ish. They are located below the fold. 

Read More ›

Dover a half decade later: And what difference did it really make?

A friend offers observations about the Dover (Kitzmiller) decision (2005).

 I didn’t cover it, because everyone else did, and I was writing a book, under contract, about something else, basically. Just as well. Everyone else who cared seemed to be on the scene already, and I was otherwise occupied.

Essentially, modern American culture is biased toward atheism, and nothing suits atheism better than Darwinism, its creation story. That Darwin himself thought so can be determined from his own writings, so one does get tired of the various bible school profs, museum curators, and textbook writers who pretend otherwise.

If you believe it, fine. If you don’t, why suck up to it? Read More ›

New book announcement: The truth about the ruthless Darwinian eugenics campaign in Canada

I am pleased to announce this book by Jane Harris-Zsovan on the Canadian eugenics scandal. I tried to cover it in the 1970s, from Ontario, but couldn’t get very far – literally. It took someone like Jane, who went through box loads of archives in her home province of Alberta, to start putting the pieces together. It is NOT a pretty picture. People here were all too willing to just accept the beliefs of important Darwinists, with disastrous results. So what happened? Why did so many professionals believe Darwinism and act on it? The Canadian experience was pretty scandalous. Eugenics? As someone who has late life parents, I can say that having kids is a real smart idea, provided you Read More ›

Darwin Meets Orwell

Evolution’s corruption of science in general, and the peer-review process in particular, continues to reach new heights. Consider a recent paper written by an evolutionist in a leading journal about, of all things, our criminal justice system. That’s right, evolutionists now want to recast sentencing procedures according to their beliefs about origins. It’s another should-we-laugh-or-cry story as the underlying reasoning is so banal while the recommendations are so scary. I doubt even George Orwell could have envisioned this.  Read more

The Best Five Books on Religion and Science: UD Readers Speak

A couple of weeks ago, over on Biologos, Dr. Ted Davis, a fine historian of science (and one of the few TEs who does not misrepresent the ID position) ran an interesting column.  He invited all readers of Biologos to submit their “top five” books in the area of “science and religion,” i.e., the five books about the relation between science and religion which had most helped Biologos readers to come to terms with the subject.  He asked the readers to indicate very briefly the contents of their top five books and why they found those books significant. Ted’s column set me to wondering whether or not some of the differences between ID and TE people spring from what they Read More ›

Another Day, Another Bad Day for Darwinism

In the latest issue of Nature, a definitive role for pseudogenes is established. In the last sentence of the Abstract the authors conclude: These findings attribute a novel biological role to expressed pseudogenes, as they can regulate coding gene expression, and reveal a non-coding function for mRNAs. Haven’t read the full article* (no time at present), but there’s a related link at PhysOrg.com that gives an overview. Yes, “junk” DNA now “communicates” with itself. A new “language”, an RNA language, is discovered. Another 30,000 pieces of functional information (over and above proteins) are part of cell architecture. And even more for Darwinists to explain per RM+NS. And the old standard explanation, of gene duplication and pseudogenes ‘evolving’ new function, takes Read More ›

When Is a Rejoinder Not a Rejoinder? The Disappointing Evasion of Karl Giberson

In my column of May 18, I sharply criticized Dr. Karl Giberson for an earlier column on Biologos, which in my view argued for a dangerous subservience to scientific consensus.

Dr. Giberson’s article generated quite a lot of controversy on the Biologos site, where two posters named “Rich” and “gingoro” argued firmly (but politely) that Dr. Giberson was being one-sided and one-dimensional in this thinking about scientific consensus and specialist insight.

Now, over at Biologos again, Dr. Giberson has written a rejoinder of sorts.

I say “of sorts,” because it answers virtually none of the questions, and responds to virtually none of the criticisms, posed by myself or the two Biologos commenters.   He responds to no points from the Biologos critics, and to almost none of my arguments; his most substantive comment is a side-argument responding to a statement by William Dembski.

Beyond his reply to Dembski, his article consists of a more intransigent restatement of his original “blank check” endorsement of scientific consensus, coupled with multiple, motive-mongering digs against ID.  The digs against ID are irrelevant because, except for some framing comments at the beginning and end of my article which were not part of my argument, I didn’t even mention, let alone champion, ID, and neither did the Biologos commenters. Read More ›

Atheism’s (Not So) Hidden Assumptions

Evolutionist Jerry Coyne thinks atheism is true. But if atheism (in addition to evolution) is true, then how could Coyne know it? For if atheism and materialism are true, then Coyne’s brain is nothing more than a set of molecules in motion. Its various configurations are simply a consequence of its beginning, subsequent inputs, and some random motion here and there.  Read more

Maybe ID’s coffin is empty because no one actually died so no one bought it?

1. Mayday mayday mayday SoS Darwin! Is it really that bad? Guess so, if you go by BioLogos.

The skinny:

… you have heard about the “massive evidence” for Darwinism, right? No, that is a confusion cleverly created by Darwinist tax and donor burdens.

What they do is they cleverly confuse two concepts: One is evidence for evolution. Few doubt that, in my experience. Does anyone doubt, for example, that the tyrannosaur is no longer among us? Well, a simple question would be, can anyone produce one?

But the Darwinist always conflates it into evidence for Darwinism: That time and chance alone can produce intricate machinery within cells, which accounts for the life we see around us. That is flatly unbelievable. “

The fat:

Guess so.

Professor Karl W. Giberson vice-president of BioLogos asks, in Saving Darwin Can you still be a Christian and support the idea of evolution? He argues that we can save Darwin and still be Christians or theists.

But that begs the question: Why should we? Why should we care about saving Darwin? Darwin is in eclipse scientifically, for good reasons, and the question is what to do now.

Darwinism is kept in place by people I can only describe as atheist tax and donor burdens. They do not hesitate to lavish sickening obsequies on the old Brit toff. Christian tax and donor burdens who support these atheist tax burdens support them and pay no attention, so far as I can see, to the fact that the vast majority of their compatriots are pure naturalists (= no God and no free will). Indeed, their constant refrain is, if we don’t accept these people’s views, ours will not be believed or accepted.

As if that would ever happen in an environment where such people rule. It would be quite the laff riot if it did not involve serious public policy issues.

Next segment: 2. Christian Darwinism is not in trouble? No? Want to put it to a real test?

Note: You can read the whole thing here, as per below. I placed links back to the Post-Darwinist because they were already embedded anyway.

2. Christian Darwinism is not in trouble? No? Want to put it to a real test?

Read More ›

Trilobite

You Mean There Really Was a Cambrian Explosion?

Trilobite

Here is a story today about a “second” rise in oceanic oxygenation, a rise that allowed, the authors tell us, the ‘evolution’ of higher life forms. Here’s a portion of the link:

These widespread sulphidic conditions close to the continents, coupled with deeper waters that remained oxygen-free and iron-rich, would have placed major restrictions on both the timing and pace of biological evolution.

Dr Poulton, who led the research, explained: “It has traditionally been assumed that the first rise in atmospheric oxygen eventually led to oxygenation of the deep ocean around 1.8 billion years ago.

“This assumption has been called into question over recent years, and here we show that the ocean remained oxygen-free but became rich in toxic hydrogen-sulphide over an area that extended more than 100 km from the continents. It took a second major rise in atmospheric oxygen around 580 million years ago to oxygenate the deep ocean.

“This has major implications as it would have potentially restricted the evolution of higher life forms that require oxygen, explaining why animals appear so suddenly, relatively late in the geological record.”

Two points come to mind:

First, the authors are so much as saying that natural selection had a billion years to do something with life forms that can use hydrogen sulfide, and it couldn’t. Why not? I thought organisms that replicate can solve any old kind of problem thrown at them.

Second, and as a corollary to the first, ONLY when the oceans became oxygenated did life emerge. When did that happen? 580 million years ago. That’s right…..the Cambrian Explosion. This completely demolishes Darwin’s notion of gradualism, a tenet of his ‘theory’ that he steadfastly refused to give up.

Thus, Darwin was wrong. He was outrageously wrong. Why? Because, per Darwin, the ONLY explanation for the intracacies of the Cambrian fossils (e.g., the trilobite eye) presuming gradualism was at work, would have been a very long period of time PRIOR to the Cambrian in which more primitive forms ‘gradually’, via NS agency, developed their complexity. To maintain this position, Darwin had to ARGUE AGAINST the fossil record, which showed, even in his days, that there were no significant fossil layers prior to the Cambrian (yes, we know all about Epicarean, but they, too, are primitive, and they, too, are but 30 million years prior to the Cambrian). The data the authors present as much as stipulates that there were no prior “primitive life forms”, and that there was a ‘triggering event’ in the Cambrian time frame.

So, Darwin is wrong about gradualism. Darwin is wrong about the fossil record. But, of course, his theory is nevertheless correct. Huh…??!?
Read More ›