Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Come to think of it, there is no necessary relationship between atheism and Darwinism

Thinking about books recently, I recalled that philosophers Jerry Fodor (What Darwin Got Wrong (2010)) and Thomas Nagel Mind and Cosmos: : Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False are examples of intellectually serious philosophers who are no way Darwin groupies. Read More ›

The FFC -Cambridge (Metalysis) Metal . . . esp. Ti . . . reduction process

This video summarises a direct, molten salt based electro-reduction process for metals, especially Titanium: (Titanium, of course, is a rather abundant but hard to win “super-metal.” See Wiki here for a more detailed summary. The process extends to other metals and of course turns on having abundant electrical energy.) Let me add an illustration of the electrolytic cell: . . . with a broader overview, 2004: . . . nb here on universality, pardon the resolution, red — already in kg q’ties by 2004, blue achieved, grey, suitable . . . observe esp. not only Fe, Al etc but Si, Ge, Ga [not As though], W [= Tungsten, aka Wolfram], U, Th, Pu, as well as the rare earths that Read More ›

Please Support UD This Year

As I have mentioned before, an “aglet” is that little plastic sheath at the end of a shoestring.  And here at UD, our budget is so small we say we get by on an “aglet budget.” We would have to have a lot more money to say we are getting by on a shoestring budget. Which brings me to our annual holiday fundraising drive.  If you have benefited from our News Desk’s tireless chasing of the latest ID-related happenings, or KF’s in-depth analysis of the fundamentals, or gpuccio’s scientific insights, or any of our other UD features, please consider a donation to help fund our efforts.  The Donate button is there on the right of the homepage under the search Read More ›

How did new atheism become the godlessness that failed?

Ever since the new atheists declined (or whatever), discussions of Darwinism and evolution have become much more open-minded. For example, researchers seem to talk more openly about work that points in a direction other than Darwinism. Perhaps they don’t worry so much about 20,000 semi-literate trolls writing their Dean of Science to get them fired just for saying that their research points in another direction. Read More ›

Logic and First Principles: Summarising first principles and duties of reason

As we continue to ponder the core of responsible rationality, it is helpful to ponder a summary of what we have won: I recall, way back, being taught how the seventeen first equations of Boolean Algebra [which can all be verified as equivalence relations through truth tables] were of equally axiomatic status. But then, I got the logic of being infection, and began to see that in fact, from the ontological perspective, identity and its close corollaries are prior: Then, there was that old philosopher who said that truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. Sometimes, the truth does fit in a nutshell. Here, that truth accurately describes reality. That Read More ›

At Nautilus: Do butterflies challenge the meaning of “species”?

Yes, of course they do. But imagine anyone asking such a question years ago for any purpose except to show that it ain’t so: Stamp OUT Darwin Doubt!! was the permitted approach. But now we read doubt about Darwinian speciation in typical think mags. Read More ›

The larger lesson from the story of the Man With Two Fingerprints

Remember when DNA was Certain? When people were executed or spent life in prison on account of DNA evidence? “Your DNA is on it” was like Holy Writ. DNA was the guarantor of the Darwinian selfish gene. And now… The worst thing that ever happened to Darwinism was DNA mapping. Read More ›

Sabine Hossenfelder on why the Anthropic Principle is controversial

It’s controversial because it is sometimes used to support the idea of a multiverse. Otherwise, it should be common sense to assume that a venue in which we exist must feature conditions that allow for that. But the multiverse does not need logic, evidence, or science. Read More ›

What difference did Protestantism make to modern science?

In reality, it is mixed. For example, consider eugenics. The Catholic Church always opposed that dreadful scourge of people armed with strong opinions passing laws compelling some of their neighbors to be sterilized. When they did so, these eugenicists were acting explicitly as the priests of science. That was their idea of a vocation and Protestant churches largely supported it. Read More ›