Better Right Than Happy - Let's try to be rational about this.

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.

I’m Not a Neuroscientist (And Neither is Michael Egnor)

I promise, I do not intend for this blog to become “The Michael Egnor Show”, but the creationist neurosurgeon keeps writing stuff about me to which I feel compelled to respond. His latest missive, via the Discovery Institute’s “Mind Matters” blog, can be found here. (My earlier articles in this discussion can be found through this link.)

Why I Am Not a Materialist

There is a rumor going around the internet that I am a “materialist”. This seems to have started with David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow with the creationist organization the Discovery Institute. On their website “Evolution News” (which generally contains very little actual news about evolution), he writes in reference to my ongoing debate with Michael Egnor, “(T)he question before the (sic) Faizal Ali and Michael Egnor is whether the mind, with its power of abstract thought, can be fully accounted for just with reference to a physical organ, the brain. Ali thinks so — as a materialist, he would have to do so….” And in a more recent article he continues to imply that my disagreement with Egnor is motivated by a prior commitment to “materialism” (though I will say that his analysis of the reasoning behind my choice of banner art is bang on.)

A Primer on Brain Connectivity: My (latest) Response to Michael Egnor

I’ve been having an interesting discussion with Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon and member of the creationist organization the Discovery Institute, over the question of whether the mind can be explained as arising purely from physical processes of the brain. Egnor does not believe it can be, and claims that neuroscientific research supports his position. My position has been that he fails to understand this research and there remains no evidence that some functions of the mind can only be explained by “immaterial” processes or entities. The most recent of my articles on this subject, as well as links to the first two, can be found here. Egnor has now responded to my articles via the Discovery Institute’s “Mind Matters” blog, so let’s have a look at what he has to say.

A Neurosurgeon Argues That Mind Functions Are Immaterial. Badly. (Pt. 3)

This is my final post discussing creationist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s attempts to demonstrate that certain mental functions cannot be accounted for solely by the brain and, instead, indicate the involvement of some unspecified “immaterial” processes or entities. The first two posts in the series can be found here and here.

As before, I am including the video in which he makes his arguments, but it should not be necessary to watch the entire video in order to understand this post.

A Chemist Who Thinks He Understands Biology Better Than Biologists Do.

James Tour is a synthetic organic chemist at Rice University. His work primarily involves building nanotechnology from organic chemicals. He is by all accounts very good at the work he does, and is widely published. Unfortunately, he has also gained a reputation on the internet for being a prominent denier of the theory of evolution and has recently become affiliated (though not necessarily in an official capacity) with the creationist Discovery Institute (DI). You can read more about some of his thoughts and opinions on evolution in this article from Larry Moran’s Sandwalk blog.

Joao Gilberto (1931-2019)

A Neurosurgeon Argues That Mind Functions Are Immaterial. Badly. (Pt. 2)

This is the second in a series of posts discussing claims by Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon and member of the creationist organization the Discovery Institute, that recent (and not so recent) neuroscientific research demonstrates that some mental functions cannot be accounted for by physical brain processes and, instead, point to the existence of some immaterial forces or processes at work. The first post can be found here.

A Neurosurgeon Argues That Mind Functions Are Immaterial. Badly.

Michael Egnor is a pediatric neurosurgeon who is also affiliated with the Discovery Institute, an organization which promotes the form of creationism that goes under the name of “Intelligent Design” (ID). I suspect most of the people reading this are already at least partially familiar with the history and origins of the ID movement. But for those who are not, a useful summary can be found on the website of the National Center for Science Education.

One of Egnor’s roles with the DI is to serve as a Senior Fellow for what is called the Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence. That sounds very impressive, until one discovers that the function of this Center seems to be largely limited to writing blog posts promoting religion.

Hello!

Who am I? And why does this blog exist?

To answer the first question: My name is Faizal Ali. I am a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst living in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

My extra-professional interests include discussion and debate regarding the denial of certain scientific facts and theories, a denial that is often motivated by religious beliefs. The theory of evolution is probably the most commonly denied theory, and I belong to a number of groups and forums in which this issue is debated. I am also a moderator on the Facebook group “Evolution Science vs Creation Science.”