Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Darwinism

Cocktails! Astrophysics vs. Darwinist Paleontology

How can there be life, much less a Cambrian explosion, if the early Earth was an ice ball. Astrophysics tells us the Earth should be an ice ball, but why isn’t it? Astrophysics tells us that relative to today, the sun radiated 30% less energy in the time of the Early earth and 6% less energy in the late Cambrian (about 500 million years ago). But even as little as 2% less solar energy hitting the Earth could have turned the Earth into an ice ball. Simple energy-balance climate models of the Budyko/Sellers type predict that a small (2–5%) decrease in solar output could result in a runaway glaciation on the Earth. Susceptibility of the early Earth to irreversible glaciation Read More ›

Selection is falsely called a mechanism when instead it should be labeled an outcome

Natural Selection was pioneered by the creationist Blyth, and Darwin later plagiarized Blyth’s work and published his own corrupt variation of Blyth’s ideas. (See: Was Blyth the True Scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan). Blyth asserted that survival of the healthier individuals in a population was a mechanism of preserving a species (not originating them). Darwin, erroneously claimed Natural Selection was the mechanism of originating species and Dawkins in the present day vigorously insists selection is the mechanism for the appearance of design. I have no problem asserting selection is a mechanism for preserving species as Blyth proposed. However, expanding on Darwin’s ideas, Dawkins’ insistence that selection creates machines in biology is suspect at best. When is selection Read More ›

Do the ID interpretations of NFL theorems imply the creationist Genetic Entropy hypothesis?

The ID interpretation of No Free Lunch theorems argues that Darwinian processes on average will not do better than chance processes for the emergence of biological complexity. As has been debated at UD, it’s not merely a question of what is possible, but what we should reasonably expect. For example, see: The Law of Large Numbers vs. KeithS, Eigenstate, and my other TSZ critics. The Genetic Entropy hypothesis by creationist John Sanford argues that biological complexity is gradually going out of the human genome and possibly the entire biosphere. I provided cursory analysis that lends credence to both the ID interpretation of No Free Lunch theorems and the Genetic Entropy thesis here: The price of cherry picking for addicted gamblers Read More ›

Reasons people debate ID on the Internet, particularly UD, TSZ, PandasThumb, TelicThoughts, ARN

The ID debate takes place among a relatively small number people on the internet. I guess maybe there are 50 or so regular viewers of UD. Most threads have views around 300 views, which are not all unique. So why is time invested in these debates? Surely the UD and TSZ blogs aren’t reaching and extremely wide audience, and the other blogs and forums are relatively quiet. So why is there so much time spent in debate? I list here Mark Frank’s viewpoint and mine. Readers may offer their reasons. Mark Frank in response to my query wrote: Just noticed this from Sal If its not too personal, and because I want to understand, not condemn, if you believe there Read More ›

Creationist support of eugenics and genocide in the past

This is a follow up to : Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview UD’s purpose is serving the ID community. Even if I may not necessarily agree with the Darwinists, there are times things they say merit our attention and consideration. It is fair to say Darwinism inspires a lot of bad science as well as twisted morality. But I have to offer cautions if one wants to play the eugenics or genocide card because if you’re a Jew or Christian, if you play these cards, it can be thrown right back at you because of the abundant and zealous genocide practiced by God’s people in the Old Testament. In that sense, Old Testament “creationists” were also advocates of genocide Read More ›

The price of cherry picking for addicted gamblers and believers in Darwinism

One evening at the Fitz Tunica casino, a lady playing blackjack at my table confided to me, “I’ve lost $500,000 playing blackjack. The entire inheritance my father left me,”. Her bankruptcy is like the bankruptcy of Darwinism. [Fitzgerald’s casino in Tunica, Mississippi] Let us call her Jane, as in Jane Doe. As I tried to collect myself at the shock of this revelation, not knowing what to say, I asked, “did you have fun?” Jane’s eyes beamed as if she had just seen angels, “Yes! I’d do it over again. The fun was like nothing I’d ever known betting $500 a hand.” 😯 Her story is not unique. Dealers tell me of patrons losing hundreds of thousands. One lady won Read More ›