From Maria Gallucci at Mashable: Florida residents can now challenge how climate change, evolution are taught in school Florida’s statute is one of 13 measures proposed this year that the National Council for Science Education considers to be “anti-science,” the Washington Post recently noted. Alabama and Indiana, for instance, both adopted non-binding resolutions to promote the “academic freedom” of science teachers in the state’s public schools. Educators are encouraged to “teach the controversy” around “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” Legislators and parents aren’t the only ones putting pressure on public school teachers. More. Reading material like this prompts some reflections: Parents are legally required to send their children to a public school if Read More ›

From Thomas E. Elliott at Acta Cogitate (Eastern Michigan University): Abstract: The cultural debate about Creationism contra evolution by natural selection may be far from over, but the logic underlying it is settled. Creationism is ill-suited to take the place of methodological naturalism for the investigation of biology. In this paper, I survey how philosopher Elliott Sober uses some well-formed concepts from statistics and epistemology, including the nature of evidence, data, as well as the contemporary theory of evolution by natural selection to destroy Creationism as a viable theory once and for all. Creationism is a demonstrable logical fallacy, one that has no support biblically, or in science, but is a thoroughly political conception. I also challenge the idea that disproving Read More ›

As far as the practice of science is concerned, is there a practical difference between assuming the probability that a miracle will not occur is 1.00 and assuming the probability that a miracle will not occur is 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999? Tom Gilson addresses this question in his contribution to Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies in a chapter entitled Methodological Naturalism, Methodological Theism, and Regularism. Gilson starts off by quoting J. B. S. Haldane: My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my Read More ›

From Nick Hughes at Aeon: We tend to treat power as though it is intrinsically valuable. We seek it out and covet it, quite irrespective of how we might wield it and what it might get us. One need only look at the history of totalitarian politics to recognise this tendency in its most grotesque form. But power isn’t intrinsically valuable, it’s only instrumentally valuable – valuable as a means to an end. And whether or not they are objectively valuable, the ends that matter to us, the things that we care about most – our relationships, our projects and goals, our shared experiences, social justice, the pursuit of knowledge, the creation and appreciation of art, music and literature, and Read More ›

From Robert Larmer at Sophia: Contemporary Thomists, by and large, have been very critical of the intelligent design movement. Their criticism raises two important issues; the first being whether such criticism is well-founded, the second being whether it is consistent with the views of St. Thomas, from whom they claim to take their direction. I shall argue that their criticism typically misses the mark and that they are mistaken in their representation of Thomas’s views as regards intelligent design. (paywall) More. Readers unfamiliar with philosopher and theologian Aquinas (1225–1274) should read his views on the mind at First Things and ask whether he sounds in any way like a typical Christian evolutionist anxious to accommodate naturalism at any cost. Nothing Read More ›

A new journal seems to be trying to push Darwinism and eco-feminism on undergrads at Abilene Christian University.

Read More ›

How would you argue against the author of Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates? Throughout his career as a journalist, Tom Bethell interviewed some of science’s top thinkers and discovered deep flaws in evolutionary thinking. In this documentary, Iconoclast, as well as his book, Darwin’s House of Cards, he reflects on his discoveries and discussions, drawing together the main themes of the Darwin debates from Darwin to today. What’s your best argument against that view? See also: Laszlo Bencze on Tom Bethell’s Darwin’s House of Cards  

Robert Marks sends these endorsements for Evolutionary Informatics: (Note: It is surprisingly easy to read.) ··············· “An honest attempt to discuss what few people seem to realize is an important problem. Thought provoking!” Gregory Chaitin, Ph.D. Professor, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Eponyms: Kolmogorov-Chaitin-Solomonov Information Theory Chaitin’s Number Chaitin’s algorithm Author of:The Unknowable Meta Math!: The Quest for Omega The Limits of Mathematics Thinking about Gödel and Turing: Essays on Complexity Algorithmic Information Theory. ··············· “Darwinian pretensions notwithstanding, Marks, Dembski, and Ewert demonstrate rigorously and humorously that no unintelligent process can account for the wonders of life.” Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Professor of Biological Sciences , Lehigh University Author of: Darwin’s Black Box The Edge of Evolution ··············· “This Read More ›

From Amanda L. Glaze at Researchgate: Divided we fall: the evolution “controversy” as a driver for rethinking science education The present study demonstrates that university students across the United States, including science and education majors, harbor similar misunderstandings of the nature and practice of science as a discipline and way of knowing, inadequate levels of acceptance, and similar misconceptions to those held by the general public when it comes to evolution (Glaze, Goldston, & Dantzler, 2015; Ingram & Nelson, 2006; Nehm, Kim, & Sheppard, 2009; Rissler, Duncan, & Caruso, 2014; Rutledge & Mitchell, 2002; Sinatra, Southerland, McConaughy, & Demastes, 2003). Representations of students from around the United States allows for a comparison across regions that has been a limiting factor Read More ›

From Peter Fisher Epstein at Philosophy of Science: Abstract. According to the Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA), the existence of life in our universe confirms the Multiverse Hypothesis (HM). A standard objection to FTA is that it violates the Requirement of Total Evidence (RTE). I argue that RTE should be rejected in favor of the Predesignation Requirement, according to which, in assessing the outcome of a probabilistic process, we should only use evidence characterizable in a manner available prior to observing the outcome. This produces the right verdicts in some simple cases in which RTE leads us astray; and, when applied to FTA, it shows that our evidence does confirm HM. More. This is what philosophizing comes to these days. There is no Read More ›