Category: science education

Wiki’s F – - on ID, 6: Is all of this focus on the Wiki ID article mere tilting at a windmill that is pointless and so should be ignored?

( To comment, kindly go here) One of the objections to the markup of the Wiki ID article is that this is tilting at a windmill. I disagree. It should already be plain that the Wiki article is representative of a standard set of talking points used to polarise the unwary against design theory, and […] more

Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling

( To comment, kindly go here) Last time, we showed how Wikipedia’s article on Intelligent Design flagrantly distorts the history of the origins of ID as a modern movement. Today, our focus is on a subtler distortion: From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for […] more

The Magician’s Twin — C[live] S[taples] Lewis and the case against Scientism

First, let’s watch: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt Then, having watched, let us now discuss, in light of the ongoing debate on the rationality of scientism-rooted a priori evolutionary materialist atheism, here.  Also, the issues that come up as our civilisation metaphorically stands on the deck of a ship in Fair Havens and contemplates what […] more

Wiki’s F – - on ID, 4: Correcting a widely circulated propagandistic false history of the origins of intelligent design as a scientific school of thought

(To comment cf. here) Just now, I see where an objector to ID was saying that I a am tilting at windmills to take time to take apart the introduction to Wikipedia’s anti-ID hit piece presented as a NPOV review of ID from significant and credible sources. It bears remembering, then, that by Wiki’s admission […] more

Wiki’s F – - on ID, 3: The pseudoscience false accusation vs the demarcation challenge for origins sciences

(To comment, go here) As we continue to mark up the Wikipedia introductory remarks on ID in its dismissive article, the next focal issue on failure to achieve the vaunted NPOV or carry out responsibilities of truthfulness, warrant and fairness,  is: Intelligent design is viewed as a pseudoscience by the scientific community, because it lacks […] more

Wiki’s F – - on ID, 2: Wiki’s ideologically driven corruption of the definitions of science and its methods

As we continue to mark up the Wiki article on ID, the next thing to notice is how the anonymous contributors have projected unto ID,  an accusation of trying to redefine science and its methods in service to supernaturalistic creationism: Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute . . […] more

Another F double minus: Continuing to correct Wikipedia’s article on ID

Yesterday, we saw how Wikipedia is one of the most influential sites on the Internet, how it vaunts itself on its commitment to NPOV, a neutral point of view: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published […] more

They said it: contrasted introductions to (and definitions of) Intelligent Design at Wikipedia and New World Encyclopedia

News has just put up a post with the Meyer lecture on intelligent design (with a close focus on the pivotal case, origin of life, the root of Darwin’s tree of life analogy).  I responded here, in light of the history of ideas issues raised by the lecture as well as the question of why […] more

Noted philosopher William Lane Craig responds to the American Humanist Association “Kids without God” web site

As I have just noted, the AHA has put up a blog promoting its brand of evolutionary materialist naturalism to children: . . . the AHA has a web site that promotes its brand of naturalism — in effect, atheism rooted in evolutionary materialism, but with the attempt to promote human values and being “good […] more

The island that (maps notwithstanding) simply wasn’t there . . .

This morning, I ran across a news item on the “undiscovery” of Sandy Island off Australia: Most explorers dream of discovering uncharted territory, but a team of Australian scientists have done the exact opposite. They have found an island that doesn’t exist. (vid at the linked) This led me to think about the institution of […] more

A reply to Dr Dawkins’ September Playboy interview

  In an interview with Playboy, September just past, Dr Dawkins made some dismissive remarks  on the historicity of Jesus, in the context of having made similarly dismissive talking points about Intelligent Design.  As UD News noted: PLAYBOY: What is your view of Jesus? DAWKINS: The evidence he existed is surprisingly shaky. The earliest books […] more

The TSZ and Jerad Thread, III — 900+ and almost 800 comments in, needing a new thread . . .

Okay, the thread of discussion needs to pick up from here on. To motivate discussion, let me clip here comment no 795 in the continuation thread, which I have marked up: _________ >> 795Jerad October 23, 2012 at 1:18 am KF (783): At this point, with all due respect, you look like someone making stuff […] more


On Sept 23rd, I put up an essay challenge as captioned, primarily to objecting commenter Jerad. As at October 2nd, he has definitively said: no. Joe informs us that Zachriel has tried to brush it aside: Try Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). It’s a bit dated and longer than 6,000 words, (the 6th edition is […] more

On “seeing” — credibly knowing about — the invisible in science

Yesterday, following up from recent comment exchanges, I posted about the electron as an example of how we routinely deal with the invisible in science, and on how inductive — believe it or not that is now a fighting word — inference on sign is vital to science. This morning, I followed up on a […] more

Sometimes, a picture — here, a 465B Cathode Ray Oscilloscope, showing a trace on its screen — is worth a thousand words (on the significance of inference to best current explanation in science)

The Tektronix 465 Cathode Ray Oscilloscope is a classic of analogue oscilloscope design, one based on deflecting electron beams electrostatically to observe and measure electrical oscillations: But, wait a minute, are we ACTUALLY seeing electron beams? Nope, we are seeing a TRACE on the screen, where light is emitted by the phosphor as it is […] more

For record: Questions on the logical and scientific status of design theory for objectors (and supporters)

Over the past several days, I have been highlighting poster children of illogic and want of civility that are too often found among critics to design theory – even, among those claiming to be standing on civility and to be posing unanswerable questions, challenges or counter-claims to design theory. I have also noticed the strong […] more

He said it: Toronto of TSZ etc on abductive inference to best explanation in science

The illustration to the right is a Hertzprung-Russell diagram of two star clusters, and is used to infer ages for these clusters. How is that done? Stellar clusters are gravitationally bound and so the stars seem to be of the same general age and composition, also they are at about the same distance from us. […] more

He said it: “There is more evidence for evolution than … the idea that things are made up of atoms”

The only question that remains is, is he stupid or does he think everyone else is? more

Okay, you are poor, but you want to take Prof Woodward’s Darwin vs. design course? Here’s good news!

Just state why you think you should learn about reasons for thinking that there is a design of life. more

Darwin’s followers SHOULD take Prof Woodward’s Darwinism and Intelligent Design course

Now that non-Darwinist microbiologist James Shapiro is writing regularly at the Huffington Post, Darwin’s followers will have to get used to hard questions, and not all from ID theorists. more

« Previous PageNext Page »