Tag: philosophy of science

Cocked empty mousetrap on dark background.

^{Type
post

Author
Michael Behe

Date
September 26, 2022

Categorized
Intelligent Design

Tagged
A Mousetrap for Darwin, beginning of universe, Big Bang theory, co-option, Darwin Devolves, Darwin’s Black Box, eternal universe, Evolution, exaptation, Graham Oppy, inductive reasoning, Intelligent Design, Kenneth R. Miller, methodological materialism, methodological naturalism, Michael J. Behe, Molecular Machines, mousetraps, natural law, Naturalism, philosophy of science, purposeful arrangement of parts, The Edge of Evolution, Thomas Aquinas, Who Designed the Designer}

Behe Counters the Best Objections to Irreducible Complexity and ID, Pt 3

_{Michael Behe

September 26, 2022

Intelligent Design}

On today’s ID the Future biologist Michael Behe and Philosophy for the People host Pat Flynn conclude their conversation (posted by permission here) about some of the best objections to Behe’s central case for intelligent design. One objection Behe and Flynn tackle in this episode: the idea of evolution overcoming the irreducible-complexity hurdle through co-option. That is, maybe the precursors to what would become one of today’s molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum motor, co-opted simpler machines being used for other purposes, allowing evolution to build a bacterial flagellum motor one small step at a time over thousands or millions of generations, even though the completed bacterial flagellum ceases to function at all when just one of its many key parts Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Michael Behe

Date
September 21, 2022

Categorized
Intelligent Design

Tagged
Alvin Plantinga, Atheism, bacterial flagellum, Barry Hall, blood clotting cascade, cilia H. Allen Orr, cilium, Evolution, Graham Oppy, Hermann J. Muller, irreducible complexity, Jack Smart, Kenneth Miller, lactose, Michael Behe, mousetrap, Naturalism, Pat Flynn, philosophical materialism, Philosophy for the People podcast, philosophy of science, Richard Dawkins, Russell Doolittle}

Behe Counters the Best Objections to Irreducible Complexity and ID, Pt 2

_{Michael Behe

September 21, 2022

Intelligent Design}

Today’s ID the Future continues A Mousetrap for Darwin author Michael Behe’s conversation with philosopher Pat Flynn, focused on some of the more substantive objections to Behe’s case for intelligent design in biology. In this segment the pair discuss the bacterial flagellum, the cilium, and the blood clotting cascade, and tackle critiques from Alvin Plantinga, Graham Oppy, Russell Doolittle, Kenneth Miller, and others. This interview is posted here by permission of Pat Flynn.

^{Type
post

Author
Michael Newton Keas

Date
July 13, 2022

Categorized
Academic Freedom

Tagged
Bob Marks, Caroline Crocker, critical dialogue, Expelled, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, gatekeeping, generosity, Gollum Effect, Guillermo Gonzalez, honesty, humility, intellectual virtues, Johannes Kepler, moral virtues, peer review, philosophy of science, Richard Sternberg, scientific progress, Smithsonian Institution, theoretical virtues, Times Higher Education, Tycho Brahe, virtue, Wikipedia}

The Gollum Effect in Science, from Tycho Brahe to Today

_{Michael Newton Keas

July 13, 2022

Academic Freedom}

On this ID the Future, host Andrew McDiarmid sits down with historian and philosopher of science Michael Keas to discuss a recent article at Times Higher Education, “My Precious! How Academia’s Gollums Guard Their Research Fields.” The article looks at how scientific progress is being impeded by a culture in which scientists jealously guard their research instead of sharing it. Keas says the problem seems to have gotten worse in recent years but isn’t a new one. He illustrates with the story of Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. Brahe, a sixteenth-century Danish astronomer, sat on his astronomical research for years, rather than sharing it with Johannes Kepler, his assistant. Kepler only got hold of it when Brahe died unexpectedly shortly Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
William A. Dembski

Date
May 2, 2022

Categorized
Faith and Science

Tagged
1 Corinthians, Atheism, birth of science, Casey Luskin, Christianity, Darwinism, definition of faith, definition of science, Evolution, faith, fall of man, Galileo, God, God of creation, God of redemption, Intelligent Design, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Johannes Kepler, methodological materialism, methodological naturalism, Michael Faraday, natural philosophy, Nicolaus Copernicus, philosophy of science, Science, Science and faith, scientific revolution, Scientism, self-refuting claims, Theism, Theology, tree of the knowledge of good and evil, trust, truth, William Dembski}

William Dembski on Scientism, Science, and Christian Faith

_{William A. Dembski

May 2, 2022

Faith and Science}

On today’s ID the Future, philosopher William Dembski and host Casey Luskin explore the relationship between science and faith. What is science? What is faith? How does Christianity define faith? Dembski explains that faith in the Judeo-Christian tradition is not the opposite of reason; at the same time, faith possesses a relational component—trust in a just, gracious, and reasonable God—that goes beyond mere assent to propositions. As for science, Dembski describes it as a careful search for truths about the natural world, including truths about key elements such as the birth of our fine-tuned universe and the origin of living things. Dembski says that he is convinced that scientific discoveries, unshackled from atheistic blinders, point strongly to intelligent design as Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
David Berlinski

Date
March 30, 2022

Categorized
Ethics

Tagged
agnosticism, Atheism, Darwinism, David Berlinski, emotivism, Evolution, God, human exceptionalism, human rights, Humanize podcast, Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, Jewish Holocaust, Marcel Schützenberger, Materialism, metaphysics, methodological materialism, Michael Behe, Natural Selection, nature rights movement, Nazis, Nazism, nihilism, Notre Dame, Peter Abelard, philosophy of science, random mutations, self-referential fallacies, The SS State, Theism, Wesley J. Smith}

David Berlinski on Nazism, Darwinism, Emotivism, and Nature Rights

_{David Berlinski

March 30, 2022

Ethics}

On today’s ID the Future, Human Nature author David Berlinski continues his conversation with host Wesley J. Smith. Here Berlinski reflects on the Jewish Holocaust, the destructive nihilism of the Nazis and the SS, and the shortcomings of Neo-Darwinism as an explanation for the diversity of life. Berlinski and Smith also discuss the increasingly widespread attacks on human exceptionalism, the growth of emotivism and why it’s a problem, and the bizarre nature rights movement. This is the second and concluding part of a conversation borrowed, with permission, from Wesley J. Smith’s Humanize podcast.

^{Type
post

Author
Jay Richards

Date
March 14, 2022

Categorized
Intelligent Design

Tagged
anti-design, apologetics, Atheism, biological complexity argument, Casey Luskin, Christian apologetics, Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith, Cosmological Argument, Darwinian Evolution, demarcation argument, design argument, design argument from human reason, Evolution, fine tuning of physics, history of science, Human Reason, Intelligent Design, Isaac Newton, Jay W. Richards, Materialism, natural science, origin of life argument, origin of the universe Kalam cosmological argument, philosophical materialism, philosophy of science, Privileged Planet argument, public evidence scientism, purpose, teleology, theistic Darwinism, theistic evolution, Thomas Nagel}

Jay Richards on the Art of Answering Theistic Evolutionists

_{Jay Richards

March 14, 2022

Intelligent Design}

On today’s ID the Future, philosopher Jay Richards offers advices on engaging with evolutionists over the issues of origins, evolution, and intelligent design. In his conversation with host Casey Luskin, he says that if someone tells you he’s a theistic evolutionist, first find out what he means by theism and evolution. The latter term, in particular, can have widely varying meanings, and the average lay persons who see themselves as theistic evolutionists likely see God as actively and creatively working in the history of life to steer evolutionary outcomes, including the origin of humanity. What they may not realize is that such a view takes them well outside the bounds of what academic theistic evolutionists generally mean by the term Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Cornelius Hunter

Date
February 7, 2022

Categorized
Evolution

Tagged
bad design, book of Job, Casey Luskin, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith, Cornelius Hunter, Creation, Darwin’s notebooks, Darwinism, deism, dysteleology, Epicureans, Evolution, fall of man, God, HMS Beagle, human finitude, Intelligent Design, Judeo-Christian theology, Junk DNA, Kenneth Miller, metaphysics, natural evil, Natural Theology, Naturalism, Nick Matzke, perfect adaptation, philosophy of science, Problem of Evil, rationalism, science stopper, the Fall, The Origin of Species, theological assumptions, theological utilitarianism, Trinity, upland goose, utilitarianism, vertebrate eye}

Darwin’s Rhetorical Foundation of Sand: Theological Utilitarianism

_{Cornelius Hunter

February 7, 2022

Evolution}

On this ID the Future, biophysicist Cornelius Hunter explores Charles Darwin’s theological arguments for his theory of evolution. By theological, Hunter doesn’t mean that Darwin was arguing for theistic evolution. He means that Darwin received what is known as theological utilitarianism from the intellectual culture of his youth, which had strong deistic tendencies and expected everything in creation to be perfectly adapted, and he made a case against it, presenting mindless evolution as a better explanation for his observations of the biological world than theological utilitarianism. But one problem with this approach, according to Hunter, is that it assumed that theological utilitarianism is THE alternative to blind evolution. In fact, there are other alternatives, including an orthodox Judeo-Christian understanding of Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
December 13, 2021

Categorized
Intelligent Design

Tagged
ad hominem attacks, Casey Luskin, Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith, Creationism, demarcation arguments, experiment, historical sciences, hypothesis, Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, Michael Behe, observation, peer-reviewed research, philosophy of science, prediction, purposeful arrangement of parts, testability, testing}

Casey Luskin on Successfully Defending Intelligent Design

_{Casey Luskin

December 13, 2021

Intelligent Design}

On today’s ID the Future, Casey Luskin further discusses his recent essay, “What Is Intelligent Design and How Should We Defend It,” in the new book The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. In his conversation with host Eric Anderson, Luskin rebuts the claims that intelligent design isn’t science (it is), doesn’t produce peer-reviewed research (it does), and is just a negative argument against evolution. He also offers advice on handling personal attacks and objections that you’ve never encountered before. To consider supporting the work of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and its brave scientists, click here for options.

^{Type
post

Author
Stephen C. Meyer

Date
April 19, 2021

Categorized
Intelligent Design

Tagged
agnosticism, Atheism, Big Bang, Boltzmann brains, Brief History of Time, cosmological models, cosmology, fine-tuning, God, Hilbert Space, imaginary time, Inference to the Best Explanation, Intelligent Design, Lawrence Krauss, many worlds hypotheses, Materialism, multiverse, New Atheists, philosophy of science, quantum cosmology, quantum theory, Return of the God Hypothesis, Schrödinger equation, Science and faith, self-defeating arguments, singularity, Stephen C. Meyer, Stephen Hawking, Theism, universal wave function, Wheeler-DeWitt equation}

Stephen Meyer Defends His New Book to Cosmologist Brian Keating, Pt. 2

_{Stephen C. Meyer

April 19, 2021

Intelligent Design}

Today’s ID the Future continues (by permission) the long-form conversation between Stephen Meyer, author of the newly released USA Today bestseller Return of the God Hypothesis, and UC-San Diego physicist Brian Keating. Here in part two the conversation turns to quantum cosmology, multiverse hypotheses, Stephen Hawking, and Hawking’s now-you-see-it/now-you-don’t use of imaginary time to deny a cosmic beginning. Meyer argues that Hawking’s imaginary-time trick doesn’t wash, there remains powerful evidence for a cosmic beginning, and that this beginning is best explained as the creation act of an intelligent, immaterial being. Also, Keating and Meyer tackle the question: Did Isaac Newton really blunder by invoking a God of the gaps to periodically tweak the solar system to smooth out perturbations? That is, was Newton led Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Stephen C. Meyer

Date
April 12, 2021

Categorized
Intelligent Design

Tagged
agnosticism, Big Bang, Biological Information, circumstantial evidence, cosmological models, cosmology, ensemble of clues, epistemic support, fine-tuning, general revelation, God, Inference to the Best Explanation, Intelligent Design, Lawrence Krauss, Materialism, multiverse, New Atheists, NOMA, Non-overlapping magisteria, philosophy of science, purpose, quantum theory, Richard Dawkins, Roger Penrose, Science and faith, singularity, special revelation, Stephen C. Meyer, teleology, Theism, universal wave function, Wheeler-DeWitt equation}

Stephen Meyer Defends His New Book to Cosmologist Brian Keating, Pt. 1

_{Stephen C. Meyer

April 12, 2021

Intelligent Design}

Today’s ID the Future features, by permission, the first part of a long-form conversation between Stephen Meyer, author of the newly released Return of the God Hypothesis, and Brian Keating, the Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor of Physics at the Center for Astrophysics & Space Sciences at the University of California, San Diego. Do the laws of cosmology, physics, and biology exhibit dispositive evidence of a cosmic designer? Do the Big Bang and fine tuning suggest a “Mind” behind it all? In the book and in this conversation Meyer argues yes. Keating tells what he likes about the new book and draws on his deep knowledge of cosmology to press Meyer with some great followup questions. Check out Keating’s website here, and Read More ›