Albert Einstein, who was struck by the astonishing organization of the cosmos, said: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” and asked “How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?” I have to deduce that Einstein hadn’t an understanding of traditional metaphysics. Otherwise he would neither have spoken about the comprehensibility of the universe as “the most incomprehensible thing” or a “miracle”, nor he would have been surprised that math is so “appropriate to the objects of reality”. In fact metaphysics postulates “universal intelligibility” (nothing is unknowable in principle). The comprehensibility of the world is Read More ›

In a previous post of mine Joe replied to a comment of an evolutionist: Evolutionist: “Reproductive success is usually what is meant by fitness. As the biomass of living bacteria currently far exceeds that of all other organisms on Earth, perhaps they should be considered the pinnacle of fitness.” Joe: “Kind of makes you wonder why eukaryotes even got started. And it seems to go against natural selection. The less fit appear to be doing very, very well.” Bravo Joe. If bacteria are the “pinnacle of fitness” you ask “why eukaryotes even got started”? In prokaryotes natural selection worked to increase fitness. In eukaryotes natural selection worked to decrease fitness. Evolution does X and NOT X in the same time. Read More ›

A few days ago, Joe passed along a hint from Petrushka concerning claims advanced by Szostak, which — via DNA Jock — were cast in the light of suggesting that design thinkers were not addressing the latest findings of OOL research. Having had a few moments, I have paused and spoken to this, in the TSZ thread. I think this, too needs to be highlighted for record: ______________ >>I took some time to see what Petrushka may be hinting at (the very coyness being suggestive that there is a lot less there than meets the eye). Here is a clip from a Scientific American (Sept 2009) article courtesy Dr Cornerlius Hunter, back at the time: There could be pools of Read More ›

The deadline for applications for the 2013 CSC summer seminar on intelligent design for postgraduate and upper-division undergraduates (which runs from 12th to 20th July) is quickly approaching. The deadline for applications is Monday, April 15th. What could be better than an all-expenses-paid 9-day trip to Seattle, hanging out with many of the leading lights in the intelligent design movement? As part of the package, you also get a free set of ID-related books. As an alumni of this program I recommend it highly. For more information on both the CSC seminar on intelligent design in the natural sciences and the C.S. Lewis fellows program on science and society, as well as details on how to apply, go here.

Sometimes, it is necessary to point out some pretty unpleasant matters. Sometimes, that has to be done to people who have been caught up in denial and enabling power- games and associated rhetoric or propaganda. Short term, that is very unpleasant and may trigger denial in the face of painful reality (no, it is all cooked up . . . it can’t be true . . . ) This is one of those times. A few days ago, Dr Sewell again highlighted the sordid tale of how his recent article was suppressed (as was his right of reasonable reply), even as the same journal hosted a manipulative, strawman tactic rebuttal: [youtube vRLSwVRdNes] Similarly, Bergman recently documented what was done to Read More ›

There is currently a discussion going on about Nagel’s new book, Mind and Cosmos between Ed Feser and Jason Rosenhouse. Feser takes Rosenhouse to task pretty well but there’s one thing that I think he overlooks – Rosenhouse actually winds up conceding the entire argument at the end.
Read More ›