Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Popular Mechanics: The universe is a “machine that keeps learning”

It sounds as though some would like to hold onto the name of Darwinism while — in reality — adopting panpsychism. That would be consistent with other trends we've noted. Read More ›

Top scientist admits we haven’t been humble enough to appreciate the complexity of gene regulation

The other comments are quite interesting but that one is framable. If we have too many answers, we don’t have enough questions. Read More ›

Evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala’s membership in the National Academy of Sciences may be withdrawn

At The Scientist: With the potential moves against Marcy and Ayala, “We are watching social change happening in front of our eyes,” says Nancy Hopkins, an NAS member and emeritus biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It has been a long time coming.” … Read More ›

Science writer John Horgan explains how he came to doubt the AI apocalypse

Takehome: Horgan finds that, despite the enormous advances in neuroscience, genetics, cognitive science, and AI, our minds remain “as mysterious as ever.” Read More ›

Common Descent, Common Design, and ID

Mung had asked me to do a thread on common descent and common design. So, anyway, I’ll get things started by stating my own thoughts on these ideas. I intend this to be an open discussion, but I also find having a starting idea tends to help get things started. So, as I have maintained for the last decade, I believe there is no fundamental conflict between ID and common descent. That is, it is fully possible to hold to both at the same time. In fact, I would say that ID *potentially solves* many problems that common descent would bring. For instance, if you have gaps that are unbridgeable by a traditional Darwinian mechanism, you could posit that there Read More ›

A contradiction in Charles Marshall’s “white smoker” origin-of-life argument?

Paul Nelson: ... unless I misunderstand (always a live possibility), we’re back to postulating a “freak environment,” meaning the OOL explanation is a one-off event after all. The chemical determinism of hundreds of thousands, or millions of alkaline chimneys operating in parallel disappears, and we’re back to one very lucky setting. Read More ›

L&FP 40: Thoughts on [neo-?] Reidian Common Sense Realism

We live in a civilisation haunted by doubt and by hyperskepticism. One, where skepticism is deemed a virtue, inviting hyper forms in as champions of intellect. The result has gradually led to selective hyperskepticism that often uncritically takes the word of champions or publicists for Big-S Science, while doubting well founded but unfashionable analyses or even self-evident truths. H’mm, just in case someone is unclear about or doubts that Self-Evident Truths exist, here is one . . . with an extra one for good measure: (Of course, I also have argued that there are self-evident truths regarding duty; particularly, inescapable first duties of reason that actually govern responsible reason, argument and discussion, starting with duties to truth, right reason, warrant Read More ›

Rob Sheldon on Larry Moran and the junk DNA

Sheldon: If I recall correctly, the original definition of "functional" was whether that piece of DNA was turned into a protein, which depended on finding a "start" and a "stop" codon. The Human Genome Project reported that some 90% of the human genome didn't have these "start/stop" features, and hence was "non-functional". ["Non-functional" underwent considerable revision later.] Read More ›

Bill Dembski on how a new book expertly dissects doomsday scenarios

Dembski: "At the end of the discussion, however, Kurzweil's overweening confidence in the glowing prospects for strong AI's future were undiminished. And indeed, they remain undiminished to this day (I last saw Kurzweil at a Seattle tech conference in 2019 — age seemed to have mellowed his person but not his views)." But Larson says it's all nonsense. Read More ›