I’ll be doing a live debate on August 1, 2021, at 3:00 PM ET (7:00 PM GMT) with Ahmed Abdelsattar, a computer engineer who is also an Islamic apologist and frequently makes videos about why he does not accept the theory of evolution. Hope some of you will be able to watch!
Category: Science and Religion
Ken Miller, Genie Scott & Barbara Forrest: 15 Years After Dover
I have been discussing the the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial which ended exactly 15 years ago last Sunday . Three of the key figures who supported the plaintiffs recently sat down for interviews with S. Joshua Swamidass and (on two of the interviews) Nathan Lents for the Peaceful Science blog. Videos of the interviews can be found at the bottom of the page.
Continue reading “Ken Miller, Genie Scott & Barbara Forrest: 15 Years After Dover”Michael Behe: 15 Years After Dover
This month marks fifteen years since the conclusion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial which ruled that Intelligent Design (ID) is a form of creationism and, therefore, could not be taught as a scientific theory in American public schools. Recently, several of the people involved in the trial have given interviews about it, among them biochemist Michael Behe, the most prominent proponent of ID to testify at the trial.
Continue reading “Michael Behe: 15 Years After Dover”Kitzmiller v. Dover 15 Years Later
This month marks the fifteenth anniversary of the conclusion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, a significant event in the history of the conflict between creationism and science. In 2004, Young Earth Creationist members of Pennsylvania’s Dover Area School District were engaged in efforts to alter the school curriculum to suggest that there were serious weaknesses to the theory of evolution and that creationism was a legitimate alternative. Their efforts eventually culminated in the board passing a resolution that required biology teachers to read a statement to their class that said, in part:
Continue reading “Kitzmiller v. Dover 15 Years Later”J.P. Moreland tries to defend substance dualism – and anti-gay bigotry.
In the above video from Peaceful Science, philosopher JP Moreland argues for the existence of immaterial souls and minds, and is challenged by the scientists S. Joshua Swamidass, a Christian, and Nathan Lents, an atheist. Despite the fact that all three participants hold quite different views on the subject, the discussion is respectful and collegial. And I’m not entirely sure it should have been.
Continue reading “J.P. Moreland tries to defend substance dualism – and anti-gay bigotry.”Is teaching natural selection “a mass-mind tool of financial interests”?
(The following is a slightly edited version of an article that appeared previously on The Panda’s Thumb.)
Have a look at this article from the Khan Academy, in particular the section entitled Natural Selection:
Darwin, evolution, & natural selection
What do you think? Is it a reasonably accurate and informative, if perhaps a bit bland and prosaic, summary of some of the key elements of the theory of evolution, suitable for the average high school student?
What if someone was to tell you that it is, instead, a “mass-mind tool of financial interests”, designed to indoctrinate unwitting students into accepting an outdated concept that is no longer accepted by modern science? That is the view of Suzan Mazur, who has written a scathing response to this seemingly benign article on her blog.
Continue reading “Is teaching natural selection “a mass-mind tool of financial interests”?”Book review: “The Genealogical Adam & Eve” by S. Joshua Swamidass
Are science and religion compatible with one another? More specifically: Can one accept the scientific fact that human beings are the result of the 4 billion year process of evolution in which we share common ancestry with all other organisms that inhabit the earth, and at the same time believe the Biblical and Quranic accounts according to which we are all descended from a single couple who were directly created by God? For many the answer is an unequivocal “No”. This includes the members of creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute who try to discredit the theory of evolution in favour of the belief that humans are a special creation of God. On the other side are atheist scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers who argue that acceptance of scientific ideas like evolution renders belief in God untenable.
However, there remains a number of people who take an in-between position. In fact, I suspect a majority of people, professional scientists and laypersons alike, simply hold to their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) with little or no thought given to how these relate to the scientific principles which they accept. But there exist a group of people, often referred to as theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists, who are equally as devoted to theism as they are to science and actively work to create a reconciliation between the two.
The Discovery Institute gives advice on scientific integrity.
Thanks to S. Joshua Swamidass at Peaceful Science, I’ve been made aware of a recent post by David Klinghoffer on the Discovery Institute’s website “Evolution News” (which generally has very little news about evolution) discussing some recent shake ups at the BioLogos Foundation. Those who are already familiar with the history of these two organizations can skip to the next paragraph, but for the benefit of those who are not: Both the DI and BioLogos were created to promote particular ideas regarding the relationship between religion and science (particularly the theory of evolution). While the DI promotes creationism in the guise of “Intelligent Design”, members of BioLogos accept the scientific consensus regarding the theory of evolution, and argue that this is compatible with belief in God. Not surprisingly, there has been a generally antagonistic attitude between the two groups, and the DI, which had previously focused mostly on atheism and secularism, has increasingly been taking shots at the theistic evolutionism that is endorsed by BioLogos.
Continue reading “The Discovery Institute gives advice on scientific integrity.”Another Failed Attempt to Promote Supernatural Neuroscience
Over on the Discovery Institute’s “Mind Matters” website, my arch-nemesis ( 🙂 ) Michael Egnor recently posted a lecture which he describes as “a fascinating overview of neuroscience and the philosophy of mind (which) explains the fallacies of materialism and the logical and scientific strengths of dualism”. I thought I would give it a look and see if I agreed. The lecture is by Dr. Sharon Dirckx, who holds the positions of “senior tutor at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics (OCCA) and… RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries) apologist.”
Continue reading “Another Failed Attempt to Promote Supernatural Neuroscience”Is Science Limited by Methodological Naturalism?
Watch this video from a few months ago in which creationist philosopher Stephen Meyer argues that the practice of science should not entail methodological naturalism: