ID the Future Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Science Podcast
Topic

Determinism

Woman kisses her boy on forehead outdoors as they both stay in the war zone after Russia attacked Ukraine.
Image licensed from Adobe Stock

Eric Hedin on Suffering in a Designed World

Is natural evil an argument against intelligent design? And is human evil more consistent with naturalism or theism? On this ID The Future, host Andrew McDiarmid speaks with Dr. Eric Hedin about his recent article "Thoughts of Evil in a Designed World." First, Dr. Hedin discusses the problem of natural evils like earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, and other natural disasters. He reports that in the last century, the human death toll from such tragedies has dropped as we have learned to mitigate the effects of these natural forces in our lives. Hedin also discusses the impact of sickness on our bodies. "Any complex system can break down," Hedin reminds us, "because we do live in a world where the second law of thermodynamics applies not just to stars and mountainsides and physical systems but also to our own bodies." But suffering, tragic as it can be for all of us to endure, is not inconsistent with design. Then there's the other major cause of suffering in life: human evil. If humans are products of an evolutionary process, we'd expect human evil to more or less match what we see in the animal world. But as recent attacks on the people of Israel starkly demonstrate, that is not the case. We are capable of much worse, as well as much better. Dr. Hedin explains that humans have the gift of rational override, something determinists tend to forget. This is Part 1 of a two-part conversation. Read More ›
hands cobbler work
cobbler at work Photo by tiero on Adobe Stock

Jay Richards Dismantles Carl Sagan’s Passive Theist

On today’s ID the Future, philosopher Jay Richards and host Eric Anderson wrap up their conversation about a video where Carl Sagan plumps for atheism. At one point Sagan suggests that if we give up on the belief in God, then we realize that we’re on our own and instead of waiting around for God to save us, we can roll up our sleeves and save ourselves and our planet. Richards notes that Sagan’s argument involves a strawman view of the Judeo-Christian worldview, which is miles apart from the idea of sitting around doing nothing while waiting for God to save us. As Richards and Anderson discuss, it’s no coincidence that the Christian West invented universities, hospitals, and science. What Read More ›

Photo by Gorodenkoff on Adobe Stock

How to Destroy Love with Darwinism

On today’s ID the Future, host Andrew McDiarmid presents an Evolution News essay, “How to Destroy Love with Darwinism.” Altruism as defined by evolutionists means “behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind.” It’s not an easy fit with Darwinism, since Darwinian evolution is all about passing your favored genes onto your offspring. How can a creature do that if she gives her life for another, particularly when it’s not even her own children, and before she has produced any offspring? Such individuals fail to pass on their own genes — a seeming conundrum for Darwinism. Evolutionists have made some progress (they think) explaining such things with theories of group selection Read More ›

sawing branch sitting on

Cornelius Hunter: Determinism is Bizarre and Self-Defeating

On this ID the Future Cornelius Hunter continues discussing determinism, which he describes as a “bizarre position” held “with great confidence” by scientists such as the German physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. It’s bizarre, says Hunter, because if it’s true, then the universe’s initial conditions and the laws of nature produced the particular works of Beethoven and Shakespeare willy nilly. If it’s true, then all one says or thinks — right or wrong, true or false — was determined some 13.8 billion years ago. But if that’s the case, then there are no reasonable grounds for concluding that one’s belief in determinism is true. And like David Hume’s argument against miracles, determinism makes a false dichotomy between natural law and free will. Read More ›

wooden-marionette-on-strings-with-suitcase-isolated-on-black-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpg
Original image: wooden-marionette-on-strings-with-suitcase-isolated-on-black-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpg

Cornelius Hunter on the Determinedly Determinist

On this ID the Future Cornelius Hunter discusses the controversy over determinism and free will. Joined by host Michael Keas, Dr. Hunter, a specialist in biophysics and computational biology, takes listeners all the way back to Aristotle, then to Newton, then to Pierre-Simon Laplace, who theorized that a sufficient computation could determine the future based on just the universe’s initial conditions and the laws of nature. Laplace was a physical determinist, in other words, one who holds that the laws of nature determine everything. That includes human choices, which determinists today, such as German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, take to be merely an illusory experience. But it’s “an irrational rejection of evidence” on their part, Hunter argues; evidenced by how Read More ›

mammals-monkeys-in-the-wild-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpg
Mammals. Monkeys in the wild.
Photo by ruskpp on Adobe Stock

Richard Weikart on How Darwinism Fueled Scientific Racism

On this episode of ID the Future, historian and Cal State Stanislaus emeritus professor Richard Weikart speaks with host Michael Keas about the dark history of “scientific” racism. Read More ›
brain-surgery-operation-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpg
Brain Surgery Operation

A Neuroscientist Takes on Scientism and the Science Worshippers

On this episode of ID the Future we hear bonus material on the mind from the Discovery Institute’s new Science Uprising video series. Materialist philosophy says we’re no more than our brains; that we’re wet robots, in essence. Also, scientism, rooted in materialism, holds that science is the only path to knowledge. Here, a distinguished research neuroscientist take on those dogmatic claims and discusses some clinical evidence that mind is not reducible to the brain.