Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Intelligent Design

Karl Popper’s White Swans

If you observe something that has many of the same properties as an apple but you don’t know where it came from, you have observed apples growing on apple trees, then the most reasonable scientific hypothesis about the origin of the apple-like object is that it was produced by something like an apple tree. Indeed, to hypothesize that what you found just spontaneously formed on the ground from inanimate matter would be entirely unsupported.

For the ID hypothesis stated in terms of Karl Popper’s scientific hypothesis of white swans Read More ›

Chicago Cubs Fan Charles Darwin Meets Visiting Celebrity

In Chicago recently during the American Society of Plant Biologists annual meeting, jet-setting celebrity Professor Steve Steve visited Charles Darwin. Darwin was wearing his Chicago Cubs batting helmet. He’s is a big fan of those heartbreakers, you know. They met in the office of a notorious ID guy: After Steve Steve left to resume his world travels, Darwin was heard quietly complaining to Nelson — in the politest English tones, of course — that he never got to go anywhere, had to sit on the bookshelf next to the paleontology volumes, and certainly never met Martha Stewart. Just didn’t seem right for the panda to get all the attention…

Dawkins is out of date.

According to Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, Richard Dawkins is “out of date” with his genetics. Listen to his opinion on how changes happen in science. This interview is edited from Australian ABC Science Show 11th August 2007. http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/ssw_20070811.mp3

Your Karma ran over my Dogma

From the AP story regarding new discoveries debunking the Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus theory (see Sal’s post below): “Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.  ‘This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points,’ Anton said.  ‘This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn’t do.  It’s a continuous self-testing process.’” Interesting statement.  One suspects that what Anton really means is that, for her, science is a continuous self-testing Read More ›

Boston Globe says ID proponents “may well be right”

In Understanding evolution is crucial to debate Sally Lehrman of the Boston Globe writes:

intelligent design proponents claim that schools should do a better job of explaining evolution. They may very well be right.

Unfortunately, this was the only good line in an otherwise horrible piece of biased tabloid style editorializing by Lehrman, who appears to have gladly become a part of the propaganda machine of the National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE).

She is indeed correct to say the ID proponents are right. ID proponents are advocating that Darwin’s theory be taught in the way that Charles Darwin would have wanted his theory be taught. It was Darwin who said:

A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question

To that end, a book consistent with Darwin’s wishes, Explore Evolution, was written and promoted by several individuals affiliated with one of the nation’s top-rated think tanks, The Discovery Institute.
Read More ›

Don’t dare this man

He might just take you up on it: That lovely trilobite tattoo now resides on Michael Ruse’s right arm, thanks to a dare from one of his students.

NRC Admits Mutation Not Sufficient Explanation for Evolution

I thought this was worth sharing: On Page 8 of a Report from the National Research Council there is an interesting admission: “Natural selection based solely on mutation is probably not an adequate mechanism for evolving complexity.” Of course the report itself supports the concept of Darwinian evolution. But I think the admission that mutation is an insufficient mechanism is significant. They invoke lateral transfer of genes as the alternate explanation: “More important, lateral gene transfer and endosymbiosis are probably the most obvious mechanisms for creating complex genomes…” Of course this begs the question; where did the genes come from that are being laterally transferred? As far as I saw in the report, the authors only indirectly address this problem Read More ›

From the ” I can’t believe I’m reading this, but that proves I’m alive” department …

Why Europe has been in decline for so long:

At the Post-Darwinist, I received a message in my inbox regarding my update to the file I keep up on opinion polls relevant to the intelligent design controversy:

Immigrant from Europe, I have been living in the country for a little over 7 years now.
SInce then, I have been flabbergasted by the creationism-intelligent design movement in the States. Before coming here, I have never, ever seen anyone even remotely question evolution, and this in a number of countries were I have stayed and lived. To be fully exact, in none of what we usually call “civilized” countries; not to put some countries down but just that there education level is not at the typical “western world” level.

I am always amazed by hearing comments by citizens of this most advanced country about what has been accepted as basic fact, not even subject to discussion outside the physical walls of churches, in all advanced countries.

This post is not intended to hurt anyone. I would just like to understand why and how a vast number of American came to so firmly believe in creationism (or intelligent design if you want to call it that name). – xxxxxx

I assume that by “this country” my correspondent meant the United States. I replied, a tad frostily, Read More ›

The Image of Pots and Kettles ….

I was just reading this fairly-well written article, and came upon one of the last paragraphs. It’s an interesting take by a, shall we say, “non-scientist”: “These scientists argue that only ‘rational agents’ could have possessed the ability to design and organise such complex systems. Whether or not they are right (and I don’t know), their scientific argument about the absence of evidence to support the claim that life spontaneously created itself is being stifled – on the totally perverse grounds that this argument does not conform to the rules of science which require evidence to support a theory.” You have to like this logic: the scientific community doesn’t want to entertain the idea of ID with its implicit argument Read More ›

Myths about science and religion: A little research saves a lot of apology

(This is my most recently published ChristianWeek column, focusing on stuff that religious people supposedly used to believe that no one ever believed (except maybe some gullible materialists). ) The ignorance and opposition to science of religious folk has been staple of antireligious tracts for centuries. Often, the tales remind me of bogus miracle stories – so good they can’t be false. Two recent examples are worth noting: Religious folk, we have been told, opposed anesthesia in childbirth because women should suffer the Biblical curse of Eve (Gen 3:16). Medical historian A. D. Farr actually went to the trouble of methodically searching the literature from Britain in the 1840s and 1850s, when modern anesthesia during childbirth was first introduced. He Read More ›

Creationism Museum makes clear that creationism is not intelligent design

The Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, be it noted, has denounced the recently opened Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky: Dr. Catherine Badgley, a professor at the University of Michigan and president of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, remarked, “according to the Creation Museum, the history of life is short, sin-ridden, and laden with moralizing imperatives. In contrast, the real fossil record shows that this long history is brimming with discoveries of new kinds of animals, plants, and environments, inviting people to use their unusual minds to question, to reason, and to wonder at life’s remarkable variety.” Unusual minds? Interesting choice of words. But what on earth has happened to the Society for Invertebrate Paleontology? Why aren’t they chiming in? Maybe next Read More ›

Life Not Possible Without Nano-Machines

Medical animator David Bolinsky has worked with Harvard University to produce an incredible animation of the nano-machines in the cell.  You can see part of it here:  http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/147 Note in particular one statement Bolinsky makes:  “No life is possible without these machines.”  One wonders if Bolinsky has stopped to think about the origin of life (abiogensesis) implications of his statement.  If no life is posibble without these nano-machines, where did the nano-machines come from?  Note that when Bolinsky calls these objections “machines” he is not making an analogy to a machine.  These objects are in fact small bio-machines.  Question of the day for the Darwinists who visit our site:  If life on earth is not possible without the existence of these Read More ›

Identify the Indian or Shut Up

Long time followers of this site will remember that my grandfather used to collect small stones he called “arrowheads.”  He had the misguided notion that these small pieces of flint had complex and specific chip patterns that he attributed to intelligent agency, i.e., Indians making tips for their arrows.  Later in life I learned that my grandfather was deluded.  Scientists assure us that unguided natural processes are perfectly competent to produce even the most extraordinarily complex phenomena, and the “design” some people insist on inferring from complexity is merely an illusion.  And my grandfather’s misguided resort to agency to explain these chip patterns is an example of the dreaded “Indian-of-the-Gaps” mode of thinking in action.  See my post here The other day I Read More ›