Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

An utterly serious look at origin of life claims

Well adapted to the believability of mainstream claims. The thing to see here is that origin of life is history, not science. That point is often missed. Science is about how laws act in nature; history is about the details of what actually happened. If you want to know how life originated, you want to know history. It may or may not be accessible. We might never know how life originated for the same reasons as we may never know whether Neanderthal man had a religion. Anything anyone says on the subject is conjecture or ideology, not evidence. Read More ›

Coppedge: Arabian artifacts undermine current human evolution model

Yes, that human “species interbreeding” stuff nags at some of the rest of us too. But maybe a Darwinist needs to think that way. Anyway, Arabian sands may preserve many of our ancestors’ artifacts. We always say, keep digging. Read More ›

Microbial fossils found at 3.4 billion years ago at the sub sea floor level

It’s not entirely clear that these were life forms but if they were, it’s further evidence that life got started pretty much when the planet cooled and not, apparently, as a result of some long, slow, Darwinian process. Read More ›

At Mind Matters News: Defending the mind’s reality at a materialist cocktail party

What to say when you find yourself among self-assured elite sloganeers. The actual history of neuroscience in the last century has not been kind to materialist assertions and assumptions. Read More ›

Why do one-celled organisms undergo programmed cell death? A real evolution puzzle

Researchers: "In unicellular organisms, however, programmed cell death (PCD) poses a difficult and unresolved evolutionary problem. " It’s not clear just how the researchers think they have answered the question. Claiming that some types of PCD are “true” and others are “ersatz” doesn’t seem to answer the central question — why programmed death occurs at all. Read More ›

A vid on cell division that should make Darwinians wince

A reader comments: Veritasium says reasonable things until the last 10 seconds when we hear "We will create nanobots able to work better than the natural ones to make molecular repairs to your body." Honestly, how likely is that. Would anyone prefer an artificial leg to a real one? Read More ›

ID theorists publish new paper in Journal of Theoretical Biology

We hope the journal isn’t intimidated by Darwin’s Outrage Machine, Inc. Just think, some people are now allowed to bring this up. And not just as an inhouse titter, followed promptly by dismissal of the question. Read More ›

Sabine Hossenfelder despairs over vacuum energy. Rob Sheldon responds

These specialty controversies are an interesting backdrop to the current war on math. Sabine Hossenfelder and Rob Sheldon would likely agree that 2 + 2 = 4. But survey the vast degreed hordes for whom such a statement is an instance of white supremacy and colonialism and we will see the real problem facing our civilization: Far too many people have degrees (and grievances!) but no insight into what knowledge is. Read More ›

Rob Sheldon offers some comments on Karsten Pultz’s “Bicycle” ID thesis

Sheldon: "... in computer science, it is very difficult to make a random number generator. Successive runs of the code should not produce the same numbers. But most generators do." Read More ›