Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Darwinism

But Wasn’t Eugenie Scott PAID to Confuse People?

If Scott had so far forgotten her disinformation mission that she actually made distinctions between ID and creationism, she would end up triggering the thing she would most want to avoid: Serious reasons why a reasonable person might doubt Darwinism. Her organization’s mission was to prevent that. Read More ›

Did Victorian sexism influence Darwin’s theory of sexual selection? Of course it did.

We hope this sort of discussion won’t lead to efforts to “deplatform” Darwin because there are lots of discussions we need to have. The good news is that, after all these years, it looks like we are beginning to have some of them. Read More ›

Michael Ruse lecture makes interesting admission re Darwinism and atheists, agnostics

Darwin's theory, Ruse writes meant that " the way was opened for sound non-belief, although almost always non-believers – agnostics and atheists – take their stance less on science and more on grounds of theology and philosophy." Read More ›

Commentator Vox Day has some harsh words for E.O’ Wilson’s detractors at Scientific American

The thing is, when Wilson was alive, Darwinians denied the racism or insisted it was irrelevant and that Darwin’s sacred cause was to oppose slavery, yada yada … Read More ›

Is Darwinism an “Empty Theory”?

At Evolution and News, there’s a link to a 2017 article tackling the problems of inflationary theory in the field of cosmology. What I find so interesting is the second to last paragraph in this six page article. Here’s how it reads: A common misconception is that experiments can be used to falsify a theory. In practice, a failing theory gets increasingly immunized against experiment by attempts to patch it. The theory becomes more highly tuned and arcane to fit new observations until it reaches a state where its explanatory power diminishes to the point that it is no longer pursued. The explanatory power of a theory is measured by the set of possibilities it excludes. More immunization means less Read More ›

Jerry Coyne on the war on math, science, in New Zealand – and falling scores

Darwinian evolutionary biologist Coyne doesn’t dispute teaching Indigenous beliefs in a cultural class. But he may be at a major disadvantage because - if many years of his blogging are any guide - he wants science taught as a branch of naturalist atheism. Thus, the question arises, why shouldn’t we teach naturalist atheism too as an outcropping of Western culture? Read More ›

To what extent is the science we must learn at school materialist propaganda?

Here’s a question: Given what we (hope we) know today about the origin and development of life forms, would anyone today propose neo-Darwinism (natural selection) in any of its forms as an explanation - if they hadn't already had to accept it anyway in order to get to where they are today? Read More ›

Woke world destroys Darwinian evolutionary biologist

Those other evolutionary biologists had better get with the program and denounce Colin Wright, right? Or just shut up and stay shut up. From an old source: Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. We’d be happy to help but we can only help people who think that intellectual freedom is not negotiable. It must be okay to criticize Darwin too. Read More ›