vjtorley

A few days ago, scientist and young-earth creationist Dr. Jay Wile wrote a post on his Proslogion blog, in which he reported that Dr. Jeff Tomkins had abandoned his claim that human and chimpanzee DNA are only about 70% similar, in favor of a revised figure of 88%. But even that figure is too low, according to the man who spotted the original flaw in Dr. Tomkins’s work. Dr. Wile reports: More than two years ago, Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins, a former director of the Clemson University Genomics Institute, performed a detailed, chromosome-by-chromosome comparison of human and chimpanzee DNA using a widely-recognized computer program known as BLAST. His analysis indicated that, on average, human and chimpanzee DNA are only about Read More ›

Professor Larry Moran’s latest post on Sandwalk criticizes Jonathan McLatchie for claiming that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific investigation. On the contrary, declares Moran, Intelligent Design is a movement whose members are motivated by a desire to discredit materialism and defend their belief in a Creator. 99% of ID activities, he claims, are attacks on evolution, rather than attempts to scientifically identify which objects were designed. Moran respects McLatchie for his solid grasp of evolutionary biology, but regards him as having “fallen in to the trap of deceiving himself about his true motives.” But even if Professor Moran’s characterization of the motives of ID proponents were entirely correct, it would be utterly irrelevant. The reason is that science is Read More ›

The philosopher Edward Feser surely needs no introduction here. In today’s short post, I’d like to address, in a non-polemical fashion, one of Professor Feser’s longstanding objections to Intelligent Design: that it is tied to an anthropomorphic conception of the Designer’s Mind, because the intelligence it attributes to this Being is fundamentally no different to our own. Such a Being, argues Feser, could not possibly be the absolutely simple God of classical theism: it is, at best, a mere Demiurge. Feser stated his argument succinctly in a 2014 post titled, Miracles, ID, and classical theism: Paley and ID theory predicate attributes of God and of creatures univocally, whereas for Thomists these predications are to be understood analogously. The problem here Read More ›

Over at RealClearScience, biologist Steven “Ross” Pomeroy has written an interesting piece titled, Why God Cannot Be Proven: A Star Trek Argument. Pomeroy contends that since aliens could duplicate anything that a Deity could do, author Eric Metaxas was wrong to claim that science could make a case for God, as he did an a Wall Street Journal article last Christmas. It strikes me that there are several things wrong with Pomeroy’s argument. I’d like to point out four major flaws before I go on to discuss what I see as a paradox for naturalism which is implied by his argument: if it is correct, then our own species (Homo sapiens) was almost certainly produced by intelligent designers (aliens) who Read More ›

Professor Jerry Coyne’s credibility as a New Atheist is now in tatters, after the publication of yesterday’s devastating rebuttal by philosopher Edward Feser, on top of the one he wrote last week. Additionally, Coyne has undermined his scientific credibility by declaring that “it’s simply wrong to suggest that there’s any real scientific ‘debate’ about macroevolution.” (Coyne made this comment in a post which took a gratuitous swipe at a Canadian science text titled, Human Biology, Anatomy and Physiology for the Health Sciences by Wendi Roscoe, Professor in the Health Science department at Fanshawe College, London, Ontario. Professor Roscoe’s ratings are stellar and as far as I can ascertain, she is a convinced evolutionist. Roscoe’s “crime,” in Coyne’s eyes, was to Read More ›

Any fair-minded person who read Thomist philosopher Edward Feser’s incisive and crushing refutation of physicist Lawrence Krauss’s article, “Why scientists should be militant atheists,” would have to conclude that New Atheism was on the ropes. But after reading Jerry Coyne’s spirited defense of Krauss, I was reminded of a line from Louisa Alcott’s Little Men: “’Come on, come on, I ain’t thrashed yet!’ cried Emil, who had been down five times, but did not know when he was beaten.” Judging from the comments on his latest post, many of Professor Coyne’s readers seemed to share his view that the cosmological argument for the existence of God, which is based on the contingency of the world, was no better than the Read More ›

Jeffrey Tayler has written an article in Salon, titled, Make them shut up about God: The right-wing’s religious delusions are killing us—and them, in which he lists some questions he’d ask politicians of faith: Sample questions to be put to pietistic contenders for the White House: What makes you believe in God? Do you hear voices? See visions? Do you believe God answers your prayers? If so, please provide objective evidence. Why is, say, the Bible or the Torah better than the Quran? Does not the eternal hellfire the supposedly merciful Jesus promised sinners epitomize Constitutionally prohibited cruel and unusual punishment? If you consider the Bible a reliable guide for your personal life, may I ask if would you slaughter Read More ›

Over at What’s Wrong with the World, Dr. Lydia McGrew has written a short article that nails the reason why atheists are liable to err on moral matters. The article, titled, Does being an atheist interfere with being moral? (September 22, 2015), identifies metaphysical naturalism (which views the world as the sum total of what can be described by the sciences) as the root of the problem. There is of course no logical reason why atheists are bound to accept this materialistic worldview, but the vast majority of contemporary atheists do, and the ethical theory which they tend to opt for, as a best fit for their metaphysical views, is utilitarianism. On a utilitarian view, there are no radical discontinuities Read More ›

Jurisprudence Professor Robert George and bioethicist Patrick Lee have written a devastating take-down of Bill Nye in an article for National Review titled, Back to Science Class for the Science Guy, after Nye published a video on YouTube, claiming to tell us what science says about abortion. As take-downs go, this one is about as good as it gets, and I warmly recommend it to readers. The authors write: …[H]e (Nye) misrepresents the facts from top to bottom in an embarrassingly transparent effort to hijack science in the cause of pro-abortion ideology. The authors’ conclusion is also worth quoting: At several points in his video, Nye expresses frustration with people who don’t share his support for the moral and legal Read More ›

While it is doubtful whether Pope Francis’ speech to the United Nations actually ascribed rights to Nature, the Pope clearly denied that humans have the right to harm Nature: doing so harms humanity, he said. I believe this kind of thinking is dangerous for two reasons: it ignores the lessons of history and it will inevitably stymie human development in poor countries. (To give credit where credit is due, though, I was heartened that the Pope saw fit to mention the unborn in his latest speech – something he didn’t do in his speech to Congress.) What did the Pope actually say? For the benefit of readers, here is the relevant passage from Pope Francis’ United Nations speech (Al Jazeera Read More ›

Like many readers, I watched the Pope’s speech earlier today. It was in many ways a beautiful speech, which brought members of Congress to their feet (many with tears in their eyes) in a standing ovation. While the issues it addressed were all vital ones, I was a little disappointed at the issues it didn’t address, or barely mentioned. Perhaps there was a good reason for that. But then I decided that instead of whingeing, I would do something constructive: write an alternative speech that the Pope could have delivered, covering all the issues that I felt he needed to draw people’s attention to. I don’t write speeches for a living, so I apologize to readers if my poor effort Read More ›

Over at Heather’s Homilies, Heather Hastie has written a post titled, Is New Atheism a Cult?, in which she argues convincingly for the negative position. Cults tend to share certain characteristics which, by and large, don’t apply to New Atheism: The group members display an excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment to an individual. The group members are preoccupied with bringing in new members. Members are expected to devote inordinate amount of time to the group. Members are preoccupied with making money. Members’ subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give personal goals and activities that were of interest to the group. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other Read More ›

Two years ago, KeithS, who surely needs no introduction here, mounted a skeptical argument in a thread on Uncommon Descent. The argument purported to show that we should never claim absolute certainty for any thought – a very strong conclusion. It was not until today that this argument came to my attention, when I read a comment by KeithS in a post by Colin over at TSZ, on self-evident truths. In this post, I will not be arguing that there are any self-evident truths. My aim is a more modest one: to show that the strong version of skepticism defended by KeithS does not follow from the premises in his argument. KeithS’s skeptical argument To give credit where credit is Read More ›

Atheist blogger Heather Hastie, who blogs over at Heather’s Homilies, has written a post titled, The Value of Prayer, in which she pokes fun at religion by using clear and simple flowcharts, whose pithy sarcasm impressed New Atheist Jerry Coyne. But a flowchart can easily be invalidated by faulty assumptions and loaded questions, and Ms. Hastie’s flowcharts are no exception. Take Heather Hastie’s flowchart on belief in God. Ms. Hastie begins by asking: “If God is all loving and all forgiving, would he forgive someone for not believing in him, without being asked?” If the answer is “No,” then God is not all loving and all forgiving; but if it is “Yes,” then no-one needs to believe in or worship Read More ›

He’s at it again. Physicist Lawrence Krauss has written an article for the New Yorker titled, All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists (September 8, 2015), in which he asserts that for scientists, “no idea is sacred,” while at the same time declaring: “Scientists have an obligation not to lie about the natural world.” Sorry, Professor Krauss, but if no idea is sacred, then neither is the idea of an obligation. Krauss also argues that scientists should “openly question beliefs,” even if that means offending others, and that they should not be ashamed of being called militant atheists. I am astonished that Krauss cannot perceive the contradiction between his universal skepticism and his absolutist endorsement of Enlightenment values, when he gushes, Read More ›