Theology: What ID is, is not
Intelligent design 2.0? Huh?
The search for “what sets humans apart” from chimpanzees is really a fake search
National Public Radio: Ape babble hints at origins of human speech
Why zebras are striped (this time we really MEAN it)
New species: Microbe breathes sulfate
Researchers: Exo-planets more friendly than thought
Researchers: Early Earth was indeed “extremely oxygen-poor compared to today”
WJM on Subjectivist Equivocations
The following is from William J. Murray: The problem inherent in arguments for subjective morality is often that those arguing for subjectivism employ terminology that is unavailable to their argument, such as X “is wrong” or “is immoral”. That phrasing obfuscates what the subjectivist must mean as opposed to what an objectivist means when they say the same thing. Normally, especially in a debate like this, one would use terms and phrasings that distinguish between personal preference and an implied reference to an objective ruling/measurement. In regular conversation, there would be a situational understanding, like: “No, that’s the wrong color shoes to go with your outfit.” where the term “wrong” would be understood as a strong expression of personal aesthetics. Read More ›
Re Eric Metaxas: Religion profs attempt to take back their swell racket
Is New Scientist channelling us? Dunno. We sure aren’t channelling them but…
Lee Smolin wants to ditch the multiverse?
Stone tools drove human evolution, researchers say
Yes, Mobs Are Famous for Respecting the Rights of Minorities
Sometimes it is useful to highlight some of the more aggressively stupid things that materialists say: Stephen B: How do you decide if the government has over-stepped its authority? Aurelio Smith: In a democracy, you can assert it and see if anyone agrees.