Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Exoplanets made of diamonds?

Researchers: Exoplanets around stars with a higher carbon to oxygen ratio than our sun are more likely to be carbon-rich. They hypothesize that these carbon-rich exoplanets could convert to diamond and silicate, if water (which is abundant in the universe) were present, creating a diamond-rich composition. Read More ›

Scientific American breaks with 175-year tradition, endorses Joe Biden for US President

They can break with tradition in this way if they want, of course. But then they will no longer be able to say that their science is not tainted with (drenched in?) politics. Which is why, no matter what the crisis, no one did it in the past. The outcome, no matter who wins the U.S. election, will be reduced public trust in science. Scientific American could well find itself down there with “media” generally, in terms of public trust. Read More ›

Will respect for science survive the polarization of our era?

Alternatively, it may become possible to have a discussion about what, exactly, science is. For example, in the case of the ATP turbine, “Natural selection did it” has the same explicit explanatory value as “God did it.” But natural selection is somehow science and God is not. Why? How? Read More ›

Complete structure of the world’s smallest turbine, ATP, now described

Ask a Darwinist and he’ll tell you that “natural selection, acting on random mutation” caused all that to just swish into existence. As if. If it took so much intelligence to understand the intricacy of the system, it should be no surprise if it took some intelligence to create it. Read More ›

Netflix goes over the moral cliff (or is it “conspiracism”?) . . .

A pic to ponder, first: In the aftermath of Mr Weinstein, Mr Epstein, Ms Maxwell and others (see here, the MeToo movement and how it helped set up the Kavanaugh hearings accusations), as well as the questions hovering over Prince Andrew of Windsor and others, many have begun to believe there is a lurking network of – promotion of sexual perversities (aka perversion), – sex trafficking (the notorious casting couch is sex trafficking), – grooming and trafficking of minors (there is a reason for age of consent laws),– possibly, networks of blackmail– promotion of pornography and near pornography — often, little more than – prostitution or even rape (Linda Lovelace, if you doubt me) on film or video– tied to Read More ›

At PNAS: Why science needs philosophy

A paper by well-known thinkers like Carlo Rovelli and Elliott Sober offers instances of the way that philosophers can clarify problems for science. Citing Jerry Fodor, it seems like they’ve almost forgotten that Jerry Fodor also wrote What Darwin Got Wrong (2010). Read More ›

A fond remembrance of the 2005 book, “On Bullsh*t”

Gunderman: As discourse moves from television to Twitter, it can be further degraded into mere flamboyance. What matters is no longer speaking the truth but simply attracting and holding attention. Getting it right gives way to getting noticed. Read More ›

At Medium: On the “Impending cancellation of Darwin”

Essentially, Noah Carl is forcing the biology establishment to admit that they can’t impugn Darwin for his racism because he’s their religion. All those other guys can just be trashed. But not Darwin. Not for anything. Read More ›

Flap over use of term “intelligent design” in PNAS paper

It’s possible that what Phillips means by “positive Darwinian selection” is random selection that looks a lot like design. The sin is in actually using words that imply that that IS what it looks like. Just when it looks like they've hammered everything into submission, another bulge appears. Read More ›