Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Some researchers arrive at an important truth about “consensus science”

Researchers: “When individuals are fully independent, even under highly unfavorable circumstances a consensus provides strong evidence for the correctness of the affirmed position. This no longer remains the case once dependence, polarization, and external pressure are introduced. With such interventions, the probability of a false consensus increases dramatically. ” “Shut up, he explained” is not consensus, it’s false consensus. Read More ›

Karsten Pultz offers some thoughts on the flap over the now-famous Thorvaldsen and Hössjer paper

It should also be considered that in his book Der Teil und das Ganze, Werner Heisenberg expresses his own and also Niels Bohrs’ doubt that random mutations could have produced any of the complex biological systems... Bohr adds that while natural selection obviously occurs it is the idea that new species come about by random changes, which is very hard to imagine, even if this is the only way science can explain it. Read More ›

Judge Amy Barrett and positivist “constitutional jurisprudence” as usurpation, vs., the natural law (and the natural/original sense of a Constitution)

One of the almost amusing features of UD is to observe threads largely dodged by inveterate objectors (given the known, intense hostile scrutiny we face). One of those threads, recently, has been the discussion of Judge Amy Barrett and the hearings she faces. However, in the course of some discussion some themes were sounded that are worth further focus, so, let us headline some of these. A good start point is with a Washington Post Op Ed by Brian Leiter, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School: Let’s start telling the truth about what the Supreme Court does Opinion by Brian LeiterMarch 19, 2017 Ordinary Americans may be understandably perplexed by the controversy over nominating a judge to Read More ›

Science writer mourns the slow suicide of science

Alex Berezow: "Political partisanship. There was a time when scientists knew better than to deal in politics. That time is now gone. Openly cheering for one side of the political spectrum over the other, scientists and science media outlets are gambling with their reputation." Well, from an international perspective, here’s the obvious problem: If the US Prez is THAT important, science ain’t what it used to be. Read More ›

That notorious ID paper was the one most downloaded from the Journal…

Eventually, people, we are going to have to start rewarding the Darwinians for banning and persecuting advocates of design in nature. Look, guys, it's only fair. Mediocrities steam themselves into near oblivion to destroy the idea and their efforts only fan the flames. Sadly, all we wanted was a serious discussion. We never asked them to be Roman candles. Read More ›

Jerry Coyne and Determinism

You can see this video (youtu.be/i0Mzfq9loMQ) where I look at Jerry Coyne’s recent blog on determinism and the denial of free will, and a couple of scientific papers related to neurons and synapses. 

A humanities scholar gets a clue about what Darwinism IS

Amazing! Hey, here, we were all waiting for Freestone to try out the CLUNK!! on us: “If you believe in God, well, rejoice! God can use Darwinism too!” Luckily, we didn’t hear it. We are sick of certifying idiots. For one thing, we've run out of certificates. And anyhow, Freestone doesn’t sound like an idiot. Read More ›

Religion, science, … and the religion of science facing COVID-19

In fact, during the COVID crisis, a great deal of the blather for science made no sense at all, a fact that is becoming more and more evident. People won't immediately give up believing in science as a result. Rather, they will begin to treat it as the superstition of the social elite. It doesn’t make sense and doesn’t need to. It is wisely got around wherever possible.That's not what science used to be but that;s what many policy decisions have made it. Read More ›

Watching microorganisms bend “the rules” of evolution

Researchers: “It was previously thought that the only genes that could spread through a population were those that caused a benefit 'right now' (in the environment that the population is experiencing at that point in time).” That’s Darwinism. And Darwinism is becoming comprehensively out of date. Read More ›

Mike Egnor on why Coyne and Hossenfelder are wrong to deny free will

Egnor: Now let’s get to the neuroscience. Neuroscience has a lot to contribute to the debate over free will and all of it supports the reality of free will. There isn’t a shred of neuroscientific evidence that contradicts the reality of free will. Read More ›