Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Author

News

Swamidass, Rana, and Ross debate origins

That’s right, Joshua Swamidass of Washington University and Peaceful Science, Fuz Rana of Reasons to Believe, and Marcus Ross of Liberty University. Essentially, theistic evolution vs. old Earth creationism, vs. young Earth creationism. A chance to find out from spokesmen, not Twitter, what people really think. Read More ›

Richard Weikart: Scientific racism is more virulent than religious racism

Those doing battle against the religious roots of racism do often uncover vestiges of racism and this can be helpful. However, sometimes they seem to be letting the most flagrant proponents of racism off the hook. Could it be that they are uncomfortable recognizing that most white nationalists today are thoroughly secular and are inspired by Darwinism and science, rather than religion? Read More ›

At Mind Matters News: Some elements of our universe do not make scientific sense

The usually commonsensical Sabine Hossenfelder admits that this one stumps physicists: Well-attested observations of neutrinos are not compatible with the Standard Model of our universe that most physicists accept. Much about neutrinos is weird and it does not appear to be an artifact of bungled experiments. Read More ›

At Nature: Non-random mutation is acknowledged. What does that mean?

Darwinism is essentially over as far as the evidence is concerned, as Casey Luskin explains. But it is not over as far as the popular story sold to the public by people whose careers depend on it is concerned. This article in Nature is a foray into honest discussion. Read More ›

Michael Behe talks engineering and information theory on Finding the Truth

Show notes: how the latest discoveries reconfirm that Irreducible Complexity marks the death of the explanatory power of the Darwinian mechanism and other non-guided naturalistic mechanisms of the extended evolutionary modern synthesis. Read More ›

A scare from New Scientist: Melting permafrost could release ancient viruses that cause the next pandemic

The basis for such panic marketing is usually a correct science observation — in this case, that microscopic life forms (and viruses) may hibernate for long periods in ice. However, as the New Scientist article notes, “bacteria that infect humans are adapted to live at our body temperatures, so it is highly unlikely that they would survive for long periods below zero.” Read More ›

At ScienceDaily: “astonishingly similar biomechanical solutions” for ingesting liquid food have evolved in widely distant animal groups.

There is a fundamental conceptual error in that last remark by Alexander Blanke (though it may have been something he felt forced to say): The question is not whether a sucking pump would be an advantage but how it could have arisen independently twice by natural selection acting on random mutations within the time available. And no, “natural selection” is not supposed to be a synonym for “hocus pocus.” Read More ›

Claim: Intelligent design theory is a science stopper

Cornelius Hunter takes it on. Incidentally, the fact that this promissory materialism, for which Darwinism is the origin story, is all hype and no hope never means anything. A fresh batch of media will bring up the same worn themes. And it's as close to science as large numbers of educated mediocrities ever want to get. Read More ›

Evolution problems: “Species” is such a mess of a concept

And evolutionary biologists keep looking for examples in nature, with meagre results. One way of attempting to demonstrate speciation is to seize on inconsequential genetic changes and inflate their importance. Read More ›

Devolution in a flower is remarketed as “sudden evolutionary change”

If a lineage of peacocks lost the showy tails due to a transmissible genetic defect — but was thus better able to flee predators — that could also be marketed as “sudden evolutionary change.” But what question about the origin of complex life would such terminology engineering really answer? Read More ›