Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Researchers: Homo erectus survived longer than thought

At New Scientist: “But the age does open up the opportunity that there could have been potential overlap with the Denisovans,” says Westaway. The Denisovans are known from a handful of remains, which have yielded DNA. They roamed Asia and interbred with the ancestors of people in China and South-East Asia. Read More ›

At the Smithsonian: “Humans in the Americas” story is always evolving

One problem is that some points of view are understood to arise from a philosophical position but others are thought to be “just science” when they also arise from a philosophical point of view. Read More ›

The Salem Hypothesis is True, and That’s Great for ID

For those who don’t know what this is, it is basically the idea that people with advanced degrees who criticize evolution tend to be engineers, not scientists. This is supposed to be levied as a diss on the critics of evolution, but I’ve never understood why this is so. Intelligent Design focuses on the *requirements* for the development of intricate, purposeful systems. Is there a science that focuses on developing intricate, purposeful systems? That might know what the requirements of building such systems are? Anyone? Read More ›

At New Scientist: Human intelligence isn’t all it’s cracked up to be

A working definition of intelligence defeats us for the same reasons as a working definition of beauty defeats us. Once abstractions become instantiated, they are laden with particulars. That does NOT mean that the idea is without meaning. Read More ›

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor explains why new atheism was doomed to die young

Anyone who didn’t immediately accept all this new atheist rubbish as Big Insight was a moron, right? But Dr. Egnor goes on to warn that reason will not emerge victorious from a horse laugh at the declining new atheists’ expense. Read More ›

Could speech have emerged 200,000 years ago?

They're even willing to conjecture that speech began as far back as twenty million years? So, speech could be very old so long as something like monkeys did it in the past? Despite the fact that nothing like monkeys does it today? Naturalism makes people confused. Read More ›

Energy transformation vs. the ghost of Malthus

Our civilisation is haunted by the ghost of the Rev. Thomas Malthus. His core vision of resource exhaustion and population crashes haunts our imaginations. As BBC profiles in brief: Malthus’ most well known work ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’ was published in 1798, although he was the author of many pamphlets and other longer tracts including ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent’ (1815) and ‘Principles of Political Economy’ (1820). The main tenets of his argument were radically opposed to current thinking at the time. He argued that increases in population would eventually diminish the ability of the world to feed itself and based this conclusion on the thesis that populations expand in such a way Read More ›

Oxford mathematician John Lennox on whether a scientist can believe in God

Reviewer: He seeks to destroy two myths. The first is that religion depends on faith but science doesn’t (chapter 3). The second is that science depends on reason but Christianity doesn’t (chapter 4). Read More ›

Once again, New Scientist needs us to know that our sense of self is an illusion

This stuff never gets old because naturalists need to believe it and to believe it, they must market it as science. That said, as Michael Egnor points, out, there is one sense in which our consciousness IS an illusion: We are not aware of the processes that enable it. Read More ›

Asked at The Scientist: “Does science describe experience or truth?”

As it happens, the loss of theism puts science in an impossible position. A traditional monotheist (and probably most deists) would assume that God creates according to logic and reason and that the scientist can indeed find out the truth by “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” But otherwise, why? Loss of the theistic perspective leads directly to the current demands that science credentials and acknowledgements be apportioned on the basis of fairness as if they were public goods of some kind. Read More ›