Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson vs. the UD Community
Art Hunt, from the archives of Uncommon Descent June 14, 2010: As far as the functional vs. non-functional business, there is one key fact that IDists ignore in all of this. I refer, of course, to the fact that intronic RNA is made and then thrown away. We don’t call it “junk” because we don’t know if it does anything, we call it so because it is discarded. Arthur Hunt Sternberg Plasters Matheson, Comment #357009 So Art says something is labeled junk because it is eventually discarded. How much of an organism is eventually discarded? If humans discard most of the molecules that constitute their bodies over the years, then by that standard everything is junk! The fact that something Read More ›
Can we find “life” on other planets if we refuse to specify what it is?
CalTech theoretical physicist Sean Carroll defends multiverse at TED talk
New method of visualizing proteins shows need for intelligent design thinking.
Has the pop neuroscience of creativity been “underbussed”?
A Member of the National Academy of Sciences Made an Argument For Evolution That Isn’t Even Wrong
An obvious problem with evolution is its claim that complex designs arose spontaneously. Imagine some spark plugs, valves and other assorted mechanical parts coming together to form an engine. It’s unlikely no matter how many years you have. What evolutionists would need to show is that there is a long, long sequence of simpler, intermediate designs which gradually lead from a lifeless warm little pond to the incredible species in today’s world. Of course they have shown no such thing—not even close. So instead evolutionists use sophistry—explanations that are so flawed and illogical they cannot even be said to be wrong. For example, professor and National Academy of Sciences member John Avise makes this argument: Read more