Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mirror neurons: Solving a problem that doesn’t exist?

There is a large range of questions that mechanism and reductionism not only don't answer but where they actually create just these sorts of meaningless problems. In this case, the resolution is quite simple: Perception is a form of action - it is a mental action - the act of perceiving. Read More ›

Why Non-Experts Care About the Controversy

I think that a lot of Darwinists are confused as to why the public has a lot to say about origins issues. After all, the public doesn’t tend to have a lot to say about computer science topics, physics topics, or mathematics topics. The average person on the street probably doesn’t have a strong opinion on whether or not hypercomputing is a real possibility or the true nature of gravity. But they probably do have an opinion on Darwinism. This has left a great many academics puzzled.
Read More ›

Darwinian Theory in a Nutshell: Random Events Can Produce the Antithesis of Randomness

Darwinian “theory” has been artificially and unjustifiably elevated into the domain of legitimate, rigorous science. It is nothing of the sort. It is increasingly nonsensical speculation based on a conclusion reached in advance. Yes, living things have evolved. They share many characteristics. Natural selection is a fact. Random mutations can do some things. Beyond that, Darwinian theory is utterly vacuous, and explains nothing of any ultimate significance. Boiled down to its essentials, Darwinian theory is a bizarre cult-like belief that random events can produce the antithesis of randomness. In no other area of science would such obvious nonsense be accepted without scrutiny or dissent. One can learn the essentials of Darwinian theory and its claims in a few hours. It’s Read More ›

Critics agree with Dembski, the No Free Lunch theorem applies to evolution

Biologists in particular and scientists in general are horribly confused defenders of their field. When responding to attacks from non-scientists, rather than attempt the rigor that the geometry of induction and similar bodies of statistics provide, they fall back on Popperian incantations, trying to browbeat their opponents into acceding to the homily that if one follows certain magic rituals---the vaunted "scientific method"---then one is rewarded with The Truth. Read More ›