ID the Future Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Science Podcast

warfare myth

Portrait of William Whewell Wellcome Image Framed
Image courtesy of Wellcome Images / Wellcome Trust, via Wikimedia Commons CCA4.0 Int'l License.

William Whewell: Statesman of Science

Are there natural limits to biological change? Is the evidence for design in nature well-founded? On this ID The Future, host Andrew McDiarmid concludes his conversation with historian of science Michael Keas about Christianity's influence on the development of modern scientific inquiry. Keas also discusses the legacy of pioneering philosopher of science William Whewell, contrasting Whewell's perspective of the evidence for design with his contemporary Charles Darwin. This is Part 2 of a two-part conversation. Read More ›
Famous astronomical clock Orloj in Prague
Image licensed from Adobe Stock

When Natural and Super-Natural Explanations Work Hand in Hand

Is there room in science for both natural and super-natural explanations? Or does science only advance by excluding arguments that go outside purely naturalistic causes? On this episode of ID The Future, host Andrew McDiarmid begins a two-part conversation with historian of science Michael Keas on how Christianity cultivated science both with and without methodological naturalism. This is Part 1 of a two-part conversation. Read More ›

Flat-Earth Faith in the “Dark Ages”: More Unbelievable Myths That Won’t Die

On this episode of ID the Future, Andrew McDiarmid continues his conversation with science historian Michael Keas on myths of science and religion, based on Keas’ new work from ISI Books, Unbelievable: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion. This time they tackle two golden oldies and a kicker: (1) that the West suffered a thousand-year “Dark Ages” after the fall of the Roman Empire, (2) that the Europeans from this period believed in a flat earth, and — the kicker! — that Christianity was responsible for both errors. Keas asks, if people are trying to use myths like this to attack religion’s track record on knowledge and education, shouldn’t they know more about what’s really true?