Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Culture

At American Council on Science and Health: Postmodernism and the slow suicide of American science

Berezow: Until it received a public backlash, the Smithsonian published a web page claiming that an "emphasis on the scientific method" and a focus on "objective, rational linear thinking" are examples of "white culture." Read More ›

(Reformed) New Scientist 8: Evolution can happen very quickly

Does anyone remember Darwin’s claim: "It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life." Yes, that “daily, hourly” thing seems quaint to us too. It probably even seems quaint over at New Scientist, given the stuff they’re saying now. Read More ›

(Reformed) New Scientist 7: Niche construction can shape evolution

To say that “Traditionally, biologists thought of niche construction purely as a consequence of natural selection. However, that argument doesnʼt always work” is to say that neoDarwinism is not THE theory of evolution. Just in: Richard Dawkins has left the building. And New Scientist has become a more interesting publication. Read More ›

Cancel Culture lets an ID-friendly paper slip through the cracks

At ENST: "Sure enough, after Darwinists discovered the article, they succeeded in obtaining a “disclaimer” from the journal’s editors, who proclaimed their bias against ID. But the disclaimer actually made publication of the article all the more significant." Read More ›

Pew survey shows that in the US conservatives trust scientists less than liberals; Rob Sheldon comments

Sheldon: If you politicize science, people stop trusting you. It has nothing to do with “science” and everything to do with “scientists.” And the fact that the media spin this as a distrust of “Science” tells you that the distrust is well-placed. Why is this so hard to explain? Read More ›

At RealClearScience: Replace juries with scientists!

So. In a science world where Scientific American broke with a 175-year tradition to endorse a candidate for U.S. President, we are still supposed to believe in some objective gold standard of science? Precisely what those people GAVE UP is any claim to be considered objective. Sorry. Scientists can’t just deke in and out of objectivity whenever it suits them. And they’ll sure miss it when it’s gone. Read More ›

Reformed New Scientist 2: Evolution shows intelligence

At New Scientist: “‘Maybe, evolution is less about out competing others and more to do with co-creating knowledge,’ says Watson.” That really is a radical idea. Radical yes, but it really is a good idea. We find it hard to improve on. The only thing we can think of is, keep the “intelligent” part in your description of nature and add “design.” Read More ›

Mathematicians debate the war on math

Carlo Rovelli stops short of saying that 2+2=5 but the article gives every sense that many would love to go there if only they could get some kind of a nudge. It is far to say that the war on Platonism is just the war on math, PhD version. Read More ›

At New Scientist: We must rethink the (Darwinian) theory of nature

If by “our greatest theory of nature,” the writers mean textbook Darwinism, well the new concepts they list are destroying it. What becomes of “natural selection acting on random mutation” if a variety of means of evolution are “natural,” mutations are not necessarily random, genes aren't selfish and don't come only from parents, and the fittest don’t necessarily survive? Just for a start... Read More ›

Michael Egnor: Darwinism as Hegel’s philosophy applied to biology

He sees that as a framework for much of the change around us: Nineteenth-century Darwinism was much more than a revolutionary scientific theory. It was hardly a scientific theory in any meaningful sense. Natural selection, as atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor has pointed out, isn’t a meaningful level of scientific explanation. It’s barely more than a tautology. Natural selection is an “empty” theory — “survivors survive” has no genuine explanatory power. As ID pioneer Phillip Johnson observed, Darwinism was really a new philosophical theory. It was the view that there is no teleology — no purpose — inherent to nature. Purpose in biology, Darwin insisted, is an illusion. Differential survival alone can explain “purpose” in nature. Darwin proposed that all of Read More ›

Scientific American doubles down on all politics, all the time

Mme Justice Ginsberg was eighty-seven years of age and suffered with pancreatic cancer. It is remarkable and commendable that she lived as long as she did; not at all a surprise that she died. Why is her death a “terrible blow” as opposed to a foreseen near-term event? Read More ›

Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne contemplates the idea that Darwin might be Canceled

But here’s the really interesting part: Coyne points to a medallion struck by Darwin’s wife’s family, the Wedgwood (who were abolitionists). But the medallion fits creationism far better than Darwinism. Read More ›

Why is there no consensus on evolution?

The main reason there isn’t a consensus is surely that anything like a consensus would create the risk of falsification. The vaguer a theory is, the less falsifiable it is.A theory like Darwinism is grand and leads to all kinds of dramatic arts and culture stuff but remains too vague to be proven wrong or proven much of anything. Read More ›