Category: Philosophy

What defines “good” design in the composition of music and the tuning of musical instruments?

“Bad design” is one of the most formidable arguments against intelligent design. I’ve responded to this by saying that what constitutes “good design” depends on the goals of the designer. If fuel efficiency is the criteria of good design, then a motorcycle is a better design than an SUV. But some will argue the SUV […] more

Darwinists say “there is no point in studying designs and its designer once we decide something is designed”

When Darwinists say that ID hinders science because once we decide something is designed, we stop inquiry. That is like saying, “there is no point in studying designs and its designer once we decide something is designed.” This is like saying once something passes our own personal Explanatory Filter, and we recognize design in an […] more

At the New Republic, John Gray blasts scientism as shallow

Gray says, Scientism has many sources, but central among them is a refusal to accept that intractable difficulty is normal in human affairs. Many human conflicts, even ones that are properly understood, do not fall into the category of soluble problems. more

Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (8) – Francis Smallwood’s Fourth Response

My neo-Darwinian friend, Francis Smallwood, has now written a response to my previous instalment in our dialogue. If you want to read it, go here. Below is a small excerpt of the response by Francis. You can read his full response by going to his blog. Follow the link at the bottom of the page. […] more

Is there evidence that we have free will?

Random Brain Waves Save Free Will? The debate continues with a new publication. But the new study by Han-Gue Jo and colleagues of Freiburg makes a strong case that the “RP” is not really a ‘thing’ at all. They say that, in the two seconds before a button press, you see both negative and positive […] more

More from The Economist on what’s rotten with science today.

The Economist: “Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not” more

Thomas Nagel reviews an evolutionary psychology book on morality

Nagel: Greene’s debunking arguments add an empirical dimension to a venerable utilitarian tradition, but they certainly do not settle the question. more

Darwin’s Doubt author Steve Meyer on methodological naturalism (materialism)

The simple fact is, information (the substance of the mind) is not material, and cannot be dealt with as if it were. That fact cannot – by definition- be allowed to penetrate the fog. more

YEC, facts and evidence

This post was originally written as a response to Barry’s recent post; however, Barry correctly pointed out that I had significantly mis-read him – I was reading much too fast. Apologies to Barry, and to those who read the earlier version of the post. I have now re-written it to not refer to (my careless […] more

Methodological naturalism is a living fossil

a “vestige” of formerly useful organs, says physicist more

How not to understand the problem with methodological naturalism (MN)

Sometimes, people discussing the topic try to explain the difficulty by proposing that it should be called “methodological atheism.” This is unhelpful. more

Coffee: Massimo Pigliucci, trying to get it

Here: It is precisely in the area of medical treatments that the science-pseudoscience divide is most critical, and where the role of philosophers in clarifying things may be most relevant. Our colleague Stephen T. Asma raised the issue in a recent Stone column (“The Enigma of Chinese Medicine”), pointing out that some traditional Chinese remedies […] more

What’s science and what’s not: ET vs. Bigfoot

There is a fun and revealing book for a cultural historian in how each gets classified as science or non-science . more

Thoughtful atheist philosopher on why he thinks ID valuable but ultimately incorrect

Monton: There are even scientists out there, such as the theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg, who proclaim that neither religion nor philosophy can tell us anything important about the world. I totally disagree. more

Geneticist and science philosopher Gerard M. Verschuuren asks, “Can Darwinism survive without teleology?

Either natural selection can create or it cannot. Actually, it cannot. It can only filter. In which case, Darwin’s theory, as he envisioned it, is false; the universe could not throw up that many almost-working designs accidentally. more

Religion causes quarrels and pure reason alleviates them?

Tell that to the Russian who got shot in a quarrel over Kant’s philosophy. more

Materialist philosopher Daniel Dennett rushes to defense of scientism

(Scientism: The belief that science can and should dictate morality instead of being governed by it. For some irrational reason, possible research subjects object to the former view.) more

NYT columnist Ross Douthat trashes neuroscientist Sam Harris’s scientism

Scientism is the clown car of mechanistic materialism. People have lots of fun pointing to it and laughing. How many of them will still be here when … more

If Darwinism were true, what is there to gain?

Nothing. First, let us compare Darwinism against real scientific theories like electro-magnetism. If electro magnetism is true, then we already know what there is to gain by electro-magnetism being true. We can build appliances that work on electricity and magnetism. We can build radios, cell phones, computers and space ships and do all sorts of […] more

Scientism 2001: “Scientists have an intrinsic bias …”

Actually, today we can say it in two words: Steve Pinker. more

« Previous PageNext Page »