Better Right Than Happy

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.

It looks like Paul Nelson Day is still on.

Among those who have been following the evolution/creationism “debate” for the past decade or two, the name “Paul Nelson” is one regarded with a sense of reverence and awe.

The Best Records of the Decade 2010-2019.

In my humble opinion, of course, cognizant of the fact that there was a lot of worthwhile music I will likely never hear, and in no particular order:

An Attempt to Solve the Dualist Problem of Interaction.

Substance dualism is the philosophical position that the mind is composed of a fundamentally different substance than is the body, and therefore the functioning of the mind cannot be explained or understood in terms of physical entities and processes. While it has roots going as least as far back as classical philosophers like Plato, it is probably most strongly associated with Rene Descartes. Today, the position is a decidedly minority one among philosophers of mind and neuroscientists. In large part, this is simply a reflection of the prevailing attitude, particularly in intellectual and academic circles, which does not take seriously claims of the immaterial and supernatural. But there are also specific problems with substance dualism that, while long recognized, remain insuperable.

Music Reviews #1

Something a bit different, now: My thoughts on some of the recordings I have listened to in recent months, as well as an old favourite. My personal listening is about evenly divided between classical, jazz, and everything else. However, I feel more on top of what is happening in the “everything else” category, and also find I have more to write about it. So if this becomes ongoing feature of this blog, I expect most of the reviews will come from there.

Michael Gazzaniga on What We Are

As a corrective to that rather disappointing lecture discussed in my last post, I offer this series of lectures by Michael Gazzaniga, one of the major figures in cognitive neuroscience. In fact, he coined the very term “cognitive neuroscience”, and is responsible for much of the well-known split- brain research that has been instrumental in demonstrating the neuroanatomical localization of specific cognitive functions, and the degree to which cognitive processing occurs at the sub-conscious level.

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.”

If I Could Choose Anyone as Prime Minister

Here in Canada, we are nearing the end of a federal election campaign. It has been a rather dispiriting affair for the most part. The incumbent, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, was elected largely on his image as a progressive reformer, but has often proven a disappointment in this regard. His re-election prospects were further hobbled by accusations from one of his own ministers of attempting to improperly influence a criminal prosecution, all this before embarrassing photos emerged from his past in which he wore brown face. His chief rival, Andrew Scheer of the Conservative party, has had to battle accusations that he has a secret social conservative agenda (which generally doesn’t fly very well with the average Canadian voter) and has not shown himself to possess sufficient charisma and vision to expand his support much beyond his party’s base. Then it was revealed that he is a closet American. The two left-of-centre leaders, Jagmeet Singh of the NDP and Elizabeth May of the Green Party have run strong campaigns, but have no realistic chance of forming a government. Possibly the strongest performance has come from Yves-François Blanchet of the sovereigntist Bloc Quebecois, which appeared moribund at the outset of the campaign but now seems poised to make considerable gains and, while confined to a single province, may end up playing spoiler to the two leading parties’ chances and holding the balance of power in the next Parliament. And, because it’s 2019, we have to deal with the existence of a far-right White Supremacist party.

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:

Genealogical Adam & Eve: An Attempt to Reconcile Science and Faith

It is one of the embarrassments of our supposedly educated and enlightened age that a large percentage of the population continues to reject the scientific theory of evolution. It is also clear that this rejection is largely related to the perception that the theory is in conflict with religious belief. People interested in fostering the public understanding and acceptance of science have taken various approaches to this problem. Some, notably Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and PZ Myers, endeavor to tackle the problem at its root by directly criticizing theism and religious belief. Others are more circumspect and try to persuade creationists that there is no necessary contradiction entailed in accepting the science of evolution and believing in God.