|
|
July 4th, 2011 | Category: ethicsEDIT: It appears the post has been restored on the site. So I guess this means Egnor isn’t ashamed about it at all? Somehow that just makes it worse.
—
I said I wouldn’t go into the detail of what Michael Egnor writes about over on Egnorance, his new blog, but I couldn’t pass this up.
My feed reader recently saved a post by Egnor entitled “Closing arguments in trial of Florida woman for abortion of post-term fetus”, a satirical piece likening abortion to [...]
» Continue reading “Michael Egnor, the Internet will remember “post-term abortion””
January 20th, 2011 | Category: philosophyYes, you read correctly. No, this blog hasn’t been hijacked by Casey Luskin, nor is this an early April Fool’s Day prank, nor have I acquired a severe brain injury.
Intelligent design, as a cultural movement, is demonstrably religious in nature. The vast majority of its proponents and supporters are evangelical, conservative Christians, and a large proportion of its outreach programs are aimed at churches and other religious institutions. While the main leaders of the movement actively deny it, hiding behind a façade of seeming scientific credibility, even going so [...]
» Continue reading “Some preliminary thoughts on developing a scientific form of intelligent design”
October 4th, 2010 | Category: philosophy
September 13th, 2010 | Category: philosophyThe following is an essay I recently completed for my first-year philosophy subject, “Philosophy: The Big Questions”. It was restricted to 1500 words, so it’s not detailed as I could have made it. However, it’ll still serve as an introduction to Nozick and Gettier cases in the area of the definition of knowledge.
———
Traditionally, knowledge has been defined using the necessary and sufficient conditions of the JTB (Justified True Belief) account of knowledge: a proposition is knowledge if and only if it is justified, true and believed by an [...]
» Continue reading “Gettier, Nozick and the Definition of Knowledge”
June 23rd, 2009 | Category: philosophyThe question in the title of this post is a question that relates more to my skeptical and atheistic leanings than my evolutionary ones, as creationism and intelligent design fall on their own scientifically, and evolutionary theory has more than enough evidence to support itself without resorting to some fallacy-ridden argument based on the non-existence of God/s. Not that I would ever do that, of course, as my beliefs follow where the evidence leads: in other words, I am a scientific skeptic. If evolution failed to have evidence to support [...]
» Continue reading “What is Philosophical Naturalism, and why do I accept it?”
|
Homologous Legs is the blog of Jack Scanlan, an Australian biology student who has a serious problem with creationists, intelligent design proponents and anyone else who misrepresents evolutionary biology or science in general.
He uses this blog to post news about the intelligent design/evolution "war", science communication in biology and chemistry, and mostly coherent thoughts from his scattered, music-loving brain. Contact
homologouslegs(at)gmail(dot)com
Book Wishlist and Flattr Donations
|
