|February 11, 2015||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Mind, Philosophy, Science|
Science has not discovered that there is no free will. But politics certainly did.
|February 7, 2015||Posted by News under News, Philosophy|
What if there were two of you?
|January 28, 2015||Posted by Eric Anderson under Atheism, Philosophy, Religion|
I rarely set foot in a bookstore, having long ago succumbed to the Amazon.com convenience. But Saturday my son had an urge to buy some comic books — and he had to have them now. He waited semi-patiently, with regular reminders throughout the day of his desire — nay, his urgent need — to go […]
|January 9, 2015||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Philosophy, Science|
Author of Evolution: A theory in crisis (which he has often said should have been called “Darwinism: A theory in crisis
|December 14, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Philosophy, Physics|
Many great physicists had a mystical bent, contrary to what we’d mostly hear from the current science blogs.
|December 3, 2014||Posted by News under Intellectual freedom, News, Philosophy, Science|
Yes, but you must be allowed to think that, Massimo, without getting your head bashed in.
|November 29, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Philosophy|
A recent research project critiques … appeal to physics to attempt to establish metaphysical conclusions.
|November 23, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Philosophy|
Monton: I’ve been unhappy with the administration’s recent treatment of me and others in the philosophy department
|October 28, 2014||Posted by News under News, Philosophy, Science|
Actually, half the people who say they “stand for science” today would lose all interest in it if it didn’t happen to support their pet peeves, grievances, and crotchets.
|October 11, 2014||Posted by News under Culture, News, Philosophy|
620 philosophers refused to contribute as volunteers if he remained.
|October 6, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Naturalism, News, Philosophy|
But doesn’t that mean giving up on any modern version of naturalism?
|October 2, 2014||Posted by News under Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy|
Darwin never had it so bad.
|September 23, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Philosophy, Science|
One can only imagine the number of opinionated neuro-midgets this guy has had to listen to.
|September 23, 2014||Posted by News under News, Philosophy, Science|
Science and philosophy are a far better fit than science and show business.
|September 14, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Philosophy, Religion|
Philosopher Lydia McGrew explains and defends the idea of divine timelessness, disagreeing with William Lane Craig.
|August 25, 2014||Posted by niwrad under Evolution, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, theistic evolution|
In my previous post Synthesis-versus-Analysis I dealt with the distinction between “true whole” and “false whole”. Now let’s see how that had relations with Aquinas and his refutation of biological macroevolution. About the origin of man and the relations between his soul and body, Aquinas was clear: Reply to objection 3: Some have claimed that […]
|August 23, 2014||Posted by niwrad under Intelligent Design, Philosophy|
I dedicate this post to our Denyse O’Leary (UD News desk), who suggested me to deal a bit with this topic. — A “whole” (or “all” or “total”) can be a “true whole” or a “false whole”. A “true whole” (or “unit”) is anterior and independent from the consideration of parts, is not obtained from […]
|August 2, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review, Philosophy|
No one reasons this way in an emergency, We may not do what we feel we should.
|July 24, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Philosophy, Science|
… particularly with the rise of post-normal, highly politicized science …
Debating Darwin and Design A dialogue between two Christians 1. Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’? 21st July 2014 Joshua Gidney – Fourth Response I wish to begin this response by thanking Francis for his refreshingly substantive and engaging rebuttal. I believe that in his critique of ID, he has stepped up several […]
(26) Garret J. DeWeese & J.P. Moreland, Philosophy made slightly less difficult, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005), p.142.
(27) Wells, op cit., p.87.
(28) Since ‘design-talk’ relies on a non-standard definition of design, I am inclined to think it just confuses matters and that if biological systems aren’t really intelligently designed, then the biological community should be able to elucidate the biological world without high jacking terminology.
(29) Dembski, op cit., p.57.
(30) Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009), p.32.
(31) Wells, op cit., p.9.
(32) Dembski, op cit., p.71.
(33) A more detailed discussion of why Dembski finds this to be the case can be found in his interview with Robert Kuhn in the Closer to Truth series, at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAoED7C-A3M.
(34) William A. Dembski, ‘On the Scientific Status of Intelligent Design’, available at: www.designinference.com/documents/2002.03.kennedy_on_ID.htm.
(35) Peter S. Williams, ‘Intelligent Designs on Science: A Surreply to Denis Alexander’s Critique of Intelligent Design Theory’, available at: http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_designsonscience.htm#_ednref7.
(36) Dembski, op cit.
(37) Mike Gene, ‘What is Front Loading?’ available at: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/darwin-or-design/id317032464?mt=2.
(38) Ferris Jabr, ‘Why Life Does Not Really Exist’, Scientific American (2013), available at: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-does-not-really-exist/.
(39) ‘In geometry, definitions are formed using known words or terms to describe a new word. There are three words in geometry that are not formally defined. These three undefined terms are point, line and plane.’, available at: http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math/geometry/GG1/undefinedterms.htm.
(40) William Dembski, ‘Is intelligent design a form of natural theology?’.
(42) William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence (Langham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), p.xi.
(43) William Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), p.36.
(44) William Dembski, ‘Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information‘, available at: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm.
(45) Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press (2006), p.193.
(46) gpuccio, op cit.
(47) William Dembski, The Design Revolution, p.115.
(48) William Dembski, No Free Lunch, p.141.
(49) William Dembski, The Design Revolution, p.99.
(50) William Dembski, The Design Inference, p.36.
(52) To illustrate this, Peter S. Williams poses the following thought experiment: ‘if there are two forensic scientists in a lab. One of whom believes in souls, and one of whom doesn’t. Do they have to resolve that dispute about the nature of intelligence, metaphysically speaking, before they can decide whether or not it was a murder? No…they can agree that there is something we call intelligence and we’ll leave the question of ‘what is the nature of that intelligence’, to the philosophers to argue about.’ (Peter S. Williams, Is Christianity Unscientific?, available at: http://www.damaris.org.uk/cm/podcasts/category/peterswilliams/?ps=140).
(53) William Dembski & Jonathan Wells, The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 2008), glossary.
(54) Casey Luskin, ‘Finding Intelligent Design in Nature’ in Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues, (Kregel, 2008). p.69-73.
(55) William Dembski, ‘Is intelligent design a form of natural theology?’.
(56) Dr Vincent Torley offers an extended examination of a more specified account of intelligence, in: ‘On the nature and detection of intelligence: A reply to RDFish’, available at: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-nature-and-detection-of-intelligence-a-reply-to-rdfish/.
(57) William Dembski & Jonathan Wells, The Design of Life, p.140.
(58) William Dembski & Sean McDowell, Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (Harvest House Publishers, 2008), p.102.
(59) Smallwood, op cit.
(60) William Dembski, ‘Is intelligent design a form of natural theology?’.
(61) Smallwood, op cit.
(62) William Dembski, The Design Revolution, p.230.
(63) Peter S. Williams argues that ‘If some detail of the natural world …exhibits exactly the same property of complex specified information, then the standard inferential argument warrants positing exactly the same kind of cause: intelligent design.’(‘Intelligent Designs on Science: A Surreply to Denis Alexander’s Critique of Intelligent Design Theory’.).
(64) Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: Harper Collins, 2009). p.385.
(65) William Dembski, ‘Is intelligent design a form of natural theology?’.
(67) Smallwood, op cit.
(70) Many ID theorists appear to agree with Francis’ observation here. that More explicitly, Peter S. Williams argues that ‘Although he didn’t employ this precise terminology, Paley pointed out that a watch is irreducibly complex.’(‘Intelligent Design, Aesthetics and Design Arguments’, available at: http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_idaestheticsanddesignarguments.htm#_ednref148.
(71) ‘FAQ: Isn’t intelligent design just a rehash of William Paley’s design arguments refuted by Hume and Darwin?’, available at: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1166
(72) William Dembski, No Free Lunch, p.xvi
(73) Stephen Dilley argues that ‘Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation.’, and that ‘theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science.’(‘Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species.’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 45, pp29-56, (2012), available at: http://theistic.net/papers/S.Dilley/Dilley-Brit.J.Hist.Sci_2011–1-28.pdf). ID theorist Paul Nelson argues that there is a ‘demonstrable role of theology in evolutionary explanation…’, in his essay ‘Jettison the Arguments, or the Rule? The Place of Darwinian Theological Themata in Evolutionary Reasoning’, available at: http://www.arn.org/docs/nelson/pn_jettison.htm.
(74) Smallwood, op cit.
(76) Casey Luskin, ‘Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer (Part 2)’, available at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/principled_not_rhetorical_reas_1004427.html.
(77) William Dembski, No Free Lunch, p.xiv.
(79) Casey Luskin, ‘Why Can’t Intelligent Design Critics in Synthese Accurately Represent Their Opponents?’ available at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/why_cant_intelligent_design_cr042651.html.