Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

So now it’s the “creationists’” fault that Darwin’s followers can’t face facts?

In short, biologists must be wrong in thinking that there is no direction to evolution but admitting that is too controversial? So they have to keep it quiet by misrepresenting to the rest of us what “random evolution” means? Or if Kelly doesn't mean that, what DOES he mean? Read More ›

Retire this science idea, Edge: That there is a common toolkit of conserved genes

If indeed “Each lineage of ants contains about 4000 novel genes, but only 64 of these are conserved across all seven ant genomes sequenced so far,” why would anyone look to Darwin’s theory to explain anything about the history of ants? Read More ›

Is Modularity a Pre-Requisite for Evolvability?

One of my favorite biologists is Gunter Wagner. He makes the claim in Genome Biology and Evolution that evolvability and modularity are highly associated. While not proof of a requirement, I think that Wagner is on the right track. In fact, this sort of research can actually bridge the gap between Intelligent Design and Evolutionary biology. The main critique ID has for evolutionary biology is that the haphazard mutation/selection paradigm does not create organisms. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t evolve in some way, but it does rule out the haphazard mechanisms. As I pointed out in 2008, there is a difference between “parameterized” evolution and “open-ended” evolution. Parameterized evolution requires information about the most likely productive ways to Read More ›

Err, Remember That Little Problem About Novelty?

The theory of evolution has made many predictions about what we should find in biology. Those predictions have routinely failed and that tells us there is something wrong with the idea. One such prediction is that the genomes and their protein products, from different species, should form a common descent pattern. The graphic shows an example of this prediction from a high school textbook written by evolutionist George Johnson. In that example Johnson informs his young readers that the hemoglobin protein “reveals the predicted pattern.” That was a misrepresentation of the evidence at the time, and since then the failure of this prediction has only grown worse. Another more recent, but related, prediction is that evolution is largely driven by Read More ›

Dr. Martin Luther King on creation, evolution and Intelligent Design

Yesterday (January 20) was Martin Luther King Day (h/t Joe). Dr. King was a great individual, who changed the course of history. In this post, I’d like to briefly discuss his views on creation, evolution and Intelligent Design. Dr. Martin Luther King’s views can be summarized as follows: 1. Like many of his theological contemporaries in the 1950s, Dr. King accepted Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, as a biological theory. He believed that human beings had animal ancestors, and he believed that churchmen who resisted Darwin’s theory were “misinformed.” 2. Dr. King also believed that Darwin’s theory had been warped and distorted by Herbert Spencer and Ernst Haeckel into an ethical and sociological theory of inexorable human progress, built on Read More ›

People’s Choice Awards: Our most read stories October 2013

Isn’t this the way it’s supposed to work, in their view?: They listen until they hear something that happens to trigger the “Shut UP!” gene that triggers the development of the “Shut UP!” neuron? Isn’t that the reason Evolution News & Views is holding a “Censor of the Year” contest? Read More ›