Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Author

Denyse O'Leary

Who designed the designer? – the mirrors of infinite regress face off against each other

But there is no reason to think that there is an infinite regress with respect to design of the universe. Regresses must terminate in a cause of all things. Whether that cause is God is a metaphysical question, but what I have said so far is merely observation and common sense. If someone wishes to claim that there could be an undetected multiverse out there and that, for all we know, it could have an effect on our universe, all I can say is that science deals with observed causes. Read More ›

Invasive species: When environmentalists shove Darwinism under the bus

Anyone who has witnessed one of these popular non-native species eradication programs (the author mentions a local “Operation: No More Water Chestnuts” as a case in point) is put in mind of traditional groups conducting a ritual hunt for “evil.” Read More ›

Breivik: “According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.”

In “Norway Killer Cultural Christian, Practical Darwinian” (July 24, 2011), we learn from Creation-Evolution Headlines a bit of the background to World News Daily’s bringing the Darwinian leanings of the Norway killer to light: WND first started challenging the depictions of Breivik as a Christian on the 23rd. Then on the 24th, WND posted the entire Breivik manifesto and described him as a Darwinian, not a ‘Christian’ in the usual sense of someone who believes in Jesus Christ the Son of God and submits to Him as Lord and Savior. For example, Support for Darwinian ideas can be seen in several places in his manifesto: While arguing against the feminist destruction of marriage, he said, approvingly, “Marriage is not a Read More ›

Darwinism creates nothing except jobs for Darwinists.

From Leonard Krishtalka (July 19, 2011) at LJWORLD (Lawrence, Kansas), we hear the grim news, “Science takes a beating in early presidential campaign”: Referring to candidate Michelle Bachmann’s comments,

“I support intelligent design,” she said, reported CNN. “What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide.”

Krishtalka disagrees, saying,

… knowledge of evolution is an economic necessity. It underpins U.S. and global R&D on the production of the world’s food, fiber, fuel and pharmaceuticals.

How, exactly does it do that?, a friend of Uncommon Descent writes to ask: “Do you have a paper or quote that refutes the ‘teaching more evolution increases the state’s economy” myth? Read More ›

No surprise!! Canada’s government broadcaster loves new atheist Sam Harris

I knew they’d get along great. Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape doesn’t believe in free will, and the billion-dollar Canadian Broadcasting Corporation doesn’t believe in trying to find out whether anyone would watch them if they weren’t a tax burden (by going private). Read More ›

Complexity of earliest animal/plant cell is real. “No tautology at work here.”

Over at Design Matrix, Mike Gene defends the view that “Complex LECA [Last Eukaryoic Common Ancestor] is no tautology”:

Someone with the moniker DrREC replied to my posting about the complexity of the last eukaryotic ancestor as follows:

This is almost a tautology. The last Eukaryotic common ancestor had the defining features of a Eukaryote….which happen to be more complex than prokaryotic life.

He replies:
Read More ›

This Christian conference is a scandal and a waste of time. Discuss.

Barry Arrington recently did far more good for any form of Christian social witness by compelling Prof. Pompous to quit harrassing a Darwin-doubting student. Oh wait, that’s legalism. My gosh, it’s even law! Maybe Arrington doesn’t care if Pompous feels good about himself. I sure don’t. I don’t care if he becomes a Christian or gets saved. I don’t care about his perspective. I don’t want to go to conferences about his perspective or about anybody’s in particular. I want him to quit harassing politely dissenting students, and he had better. Read More ›

Failure produces political correctness, in science and elsewhere

At Ricochet, Claire Berlinski (naughty girl, she is examining the intelligent design controversy as if there was something obvious to know about the universe we live in) says, (June 13, 2011),

What exactly is “political correctness?” Where does this idea come from, historically? What are its effects upon science, government, the public at large? Is it a single thing? How dangerous is it, really?

Depends. Some, who have dealt with PC on the ground, would say to anyone: Are you protected by a bureaucracy? Does your income and social position depend on others being forced to acknowledge you, even though you are useless or destructive to them? Are people expected to bark nonsense that upholds your position, for their own safety?

She adds, Read More ›