Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Charles Darwin

Abraham Lincoln’s odd connection with Darwin

At this point, Darwinism) is simply a religion, one of the strands of “the Science” now promoted by publications like Scientific American and Nature that used to retail science, as such, for popular understanding. Read More ›

At Mind Matters News: The battle over the human mind split two great thinkers

Philosopher Neil Thomas points out how neuroscience today has undermined a purely materialist account of the mind — an unexpected role but that's what happened. Read More ›

The curious connection between Charles Darwin and John Brown

Aeschliman: "After the Civil War and the death of Lincoln, 'those that stepped into the pathway marked by men like John Brown faltered and large numbers turned back,' Du Bois wrote. 'They said: He was a good man — even great, but he has no message for us today — he was a "belated [Protestant] Covenanter," an anachronism in the age of Darwin, one who gave his life to lift not only the unlifted but the unliftable.'" Read More ›

At The Times of London: “Charles Darwin will be next if his great defender is toppled”

Huh? What? If Huxley (or Darwin) is cancelled, “the practice of science itself no longer matters.” Well, that’s true but for Cancel Culture, that’s a feature, not a bug. It shows their immense power, generally in the robes of victimhood. Has none of these people been paying attention to the war on math and the war on science? Read More ›

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 ›

Science historian Michael Flannery offers resources on Darwin and racism

It may be helpful to keep in mind that opposition to slavery was not a radical position for a British gentleman like Darwin. Britain’s economy did not depend on slavery and most of the injustices of the Industrial Revolution were done to people who were not technically slaves. The issues around exploitation in his own environment were fought out on different grounds. Read More ›

Ten (or so) Anti-Intelligent Design Books You Should Read

I have posted the second video in my two part book recommendation series on the YouTube channel. In the previous video I highlighted many books that argue for intelligent design. My view is that proponents of design should face the strongest criticisms possible, and not be afraid of doing so. In line with this philosophy, in this video I talk about just a handful of the many books that attempt to refute ID. Again, I would be interested to know what others think are the best books that attempt to show ID is wrong. Ten (or so) Anti-Intelligent Design Books You Should Read

Michael Flannery on the attack on Darwin’s Descent of Man in AAAS’s mag Science

Flannery reveals something interesting: "Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin’s indefatigable “Bulldog,” wrote a shameful essay on May 20, 1865, shortly after the conclusion of the American Civil War. He suggested that the South should be relieved given that it was no longer responsible for the care and “protection” of the now-former slaves." Read More ›

Attack on Darwinism at AAAS’s flagship mag “Science” re racism and sexism

Let’s pass over the question of why Cool People never noticed that stuff about Charles Darwin for nearly a century and a half. Noticing now? Good. Then what does Agustín Fuentes suppose should replace Darwinism? A war on science? A war on math? A war on people who think getting right answers is a good thing? What's supposed to be the next step? Read More ›

Science historian Michael Flannery offers some thoughts on the drive to deplatform Darwin

Darwin’s racism doesn’t make his theory — either in its original form or any current iteration — right or wrong. The theory must be addressed on the merits of the case. So no deplatforming. Bring on the debate. Read More ›

Sheffield University: Darwin ruled “problematic” figure due to racism

Author William Cole emphasizes Darwin’s opposition to slavery but one of his quoted experts puts that in perspective: “Professor James Moore, a biographer of Darwin, told The Telegraph: 'Almost everyone in Darwin's day was "racist" in 21st century terms, not only scientists and naturalists but even anti-slavery campaigners and abolitionists.” Of course. There’s no reason why a racist couldn’t also be a passionate abolitionist. Whatever a person may believe about human equality, slavery is a corrupting influence on any society. Read More ›

Taking aim at species classifier Carl Linnaeus for racism — but not Darwin

Now, how on earth did Haeckel get the idea of “social Darwinism”? Or is it “social Derwoodism.” Surely Haeckel can’t have been riffing of the celebrated Brit toff who wrote all this racist stuff? Whatever, Darwin still has an asbestos reputation among the Woke. Anyone can be blamed for the generally racist attitudes of 19th century scientists except the man who did so much to pass them on. Read More ›