While reading Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer, I realised something important that I had previously overlooked in the debate between pro- and anti-ID camps. It’s always perplexed me why ID proponents, especially those at the Discovery Institute, constantly talk about “materialistic evolution”. If their contention is that ID is secular, why muddy that position by bringing in what seems like a theistic idea – non-materialism?
In Chapter 2 of Signature, Meyer goes through a reasonably brief history of the scientific debate between biological materialists and [...]
» Continue reading “Does intelligent design have a dualistic assumption, not a theistic one?”
While reading my copy of “Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives“, I came across an essay by Phillip E. Johnson entitled “Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism”, which had been included to give a semblance of balance to the book (in the hopes of directly addressing arguments made by ID proponents in their proper context, as opposed to more generalised, context-free arguments). Phillip’s essay, as you could probably [...]
» Continue reading “Why do supposedly savvy intelligent design proponents disparage naturalism?”
Back in May, a blogger named Dan (or facilis on this site) posted a response to one of my rare articles on religion and atheism on his blog, Dante’s Inferno. I, of course, being the argumentative person that I am, had to respond.
Dan, after much thinking/real life work, presumably, has returned fire, addressing all of my main points in some description. What else can I do besides respond again?
For those who didn’t read the first post, this is a debate about five arguments a [...]
» Continue reading “More Dialogue with Dan from Dante’s Inferno”
The 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?”
I love debates and arguing. Not sure why, perhaps it’s just the cynical skeptic in me who wants to lash out at things I don’t agree with and pull them down a peg or two. And by “lash out”, I mean in an intellectual way… Oh, why do I even need to qualify that? The violent atheist stereotype should be long dissolved by now, the operative word there being “should”, of course. Pity it’s not.
This post is kind of about that. Well, not really, it’s more about sharing ideas [...]
» Continue reading “Dialogue with Dan from Dante’s Inferno”
Carrying on from an earlier post, I’m here to continue discussing this article. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, read this.
So, where was I? Oh yeah…
Also the fields quoted above deal mostly with two things: similarities among species of an organism (by that I mean different groups of bacteria, or different groups of bees), which is not the grand scheme of evolution according to which we came from single-celled organisms or [...]
» Continue reading “CreationWiki: Evolution is still only a theory”
Carrying on with the not-so-strictly-Answers-in-Genesis-debunking series of posts, today I’ll be looking at a new acquaintance of mine: CreationWiki, the creationist’s answer to TalkOrigins or EvoWiki.
This fine website is basically what it says it is: a wiki on Christian creationism. This time I’m looking at an article/page on the site that is titled “Evolution is only a theory (Talk.Origins)“. It’s a ‘refutation’ of a TalkOrigins refutation of the claim that “evolution is only [...]
» Continue reading “CreationWiki: Evolution is only a theory”