Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution Professor: DNA Code Indicates Common Descent Because … Why?

In my previous post we saw that evolutionist Jerry Coyne claimed that “Darwin showed that ‘design-like’ features could arise from a purely naturalistic process.” That whopper was not even thinly disguised. What is particularly striking about Coyne’s lie is that the science ever since Darwin has not demonstrated this either. It is not as though Coyne was merely confusing something Darwin showed with something that was discovered after Darwin. We are nowhere remotely close to showing that “design-like” features can arise from a purely naturalistic process. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. But Coyne wasn’t referring to theoretical possibilities. Unfortunately it turns out this was not simply a rare fib from the University of Chicago evolutionist. In another post Read More ›

Ironic Bluster

I’m not done mining the rich little vein of error ore that Evolve managed to compress into one paragraph.  Evolve writes:  “DNA is a chemical molecule whose components are present in nature. It is not a software program.” Now, it is certainly true that DNA is a chemical molecule whose components are present in nature.  Here is a brief description from Wikipedia: DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions . . . Each nucleotide is composed of a nitrogen-containingnucleobase—either guanine(G), adenine (A), thymine (T), or cytosine (C)—as well as a monosaccharide sugar called deoxyribose and a phosphate group.  The nucleotides are joined to one another in a chain by covalent bonds between the sugar of one nucleotide and Read More ›

Darwinian Fideism And Who is the Real Leaper

In my last post I noted that Darwinists can be proud fundamentalists too. And then a commenter who goes by “Evolve” kindly provided an example in the combox to this post. Evolve writes: [All] of life’s processes can be reduced to chemistry. DNA is a chemical molecule whose components are present in nature. It is not a software program. . . . To deny the weight of our observations and evidence, and invoke imaginary designers requires quite a leap of faith. But who is the real leaper here? One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis Read More ›

Darwin, Poe and Arrington’s Prediction

Charles Darwin and Edgar Allen Poe were born within one month of each other (February 1809 and January 1809 respectively).  Sadly for someone trying to connect Darwin with “Poe’s Law,” the “Poe” in Poe’s Law takes its name not from Edgar Allen but from Nathan Poe.  From Wikipedia’s article on Poe’s Law: Poe’s law, in broader form, states:  Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.  The core of Poe’s law is that a parody of something extreme, by nature, becomes impossible to differentiate from sincere extremism. Indeed, when Nathan coined the term he was taking the Darwinist side of an evolution debate.  Read More ›

Where Did The Water Come From?

Having read the recent post here on where Earth’s water came from, I just stumbled across an interesting article over at ExtremeTech.com from June of this year, evidently commenting on a find that was originally reported in Science (at least, that’s what I’ve gathered from reading a bit about it elsewhere). I’m not sure if anything came of this or if it was mentioned here and I missed it (I couldn’t find it in a search), but I thought it might spark some interesting discussion. From the article, titled Scientists discover an ocean 400 miles beneath our feet that could fill our oceans three times over: After decades of theorizing and searching, scientists are reporting that they’ve finally found a massive reservoir of Read More ›

Daniel King: Stand Up Guy

In a prior post I highlighted an altercation with Daniel King. DK has been posting here since 2006, and his comments, while generally critical of ID, have been for the most part measured and civil. I am happy to report that Mr. King has accepted responsibility for his actions and posted an apology. We all make mistakes. It takes courage to own those mistakes and apologize. Thank you sir for your demonstration of that courage. The matter is closed.

Darwinian Debating Device #2: The “Turnabout” Tactic

Recently Eric Anderson started a series on Darwinian Debating Devices, to which I submit the following contribution: “turnabout.” KF has a great explication of this debating tactic at his website, which I summarize: This fallacy turns on blaming the victim by implying or asserting (a) moral equivalency through pretended equality of blame for the cycle of attacks; or (b) trying to give the false impression that the victim trying to defend himself is the one who started the quarrel. Yesterday a long-term guest gave us a pristine example of the turnabout tactic. It started when william spearshake posted a comment noting that he was “no longer with us.’ As this is frequently the terminology used when a troll has been Read More ›