Darwinism
Robert Shedinger’s recent podcast on Darwinism vs. design
Term “junk DNA” critiqued at journal. But now remember the history!
Book from Cambridge defends ID. So readers write to say…
Speculations about human evolutionary ancestry before Darwin: Mermaids
Darwinism’s legacy of confusion in biology
Paper on bacterial mobility (motility) doesn’t invoke “evolution”
Laszlo Bencze: Just another gratuitous use of the word “evolution” in the WSJ
Another Truism Dies
A new paper can be found at Phys.Org undermining the idea that what drives evolution is the “decoupling” of DNA with phylogenic structures. This idea is implicit in the twin ideas of pseudogenes and gene duplication: both allow the DNA to become “uncoupled” from the structures they code for and so RM becomes permissible. Well, this paper shuts down this idea. Given the success of cichlids, understanding the evolution of these two jaws has become an important line of inquiry for biologists. “We’re trying to gain a better understanding of the origins and maintenance of biodiversity,” says Albertson. Researchers have long thought that the two sets of jaws are evolutionarily decoupled and can evolve independently of one another, pushing the Read More ›
Here’s an interview with Michael Denton on the history and future of ID
Was Thomas Henry Huxley the first science journalist?
A new open access paper offers an approach to cancer that sees past Darwin
Larry Elder: Can somebody text Dr. Martin Luther King… ?
New Video Presentation on YouTube: Intelligent Design & Scientific Conservatism
I have recently posted a new video on my Intelligent Design YouTube channel. In this video I discuss several areas in the philosophy of science and modern evolutionary biology, and their relationship to ID. These thoughts were prompted initially by an interesting paper by philosopher of science Jeffrey Koperski ‘Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design, and Two Good Ones’. Koperski thinks that one good way to critique ID is to point out that it violates principles like ‘scientific conservatism’. Because there are several potential naturalistic mechanisms on the table, even if orthodox neo-Darwinism fails, ID is an unnecessary proposal. To turn to design explanations would be to adjust our theories too drastically. I argue against this claim, concluding that Read More ›