Intelligent Design

From Sabine Hossenfelder at Backreaction: Popper is dead. Has been dead since 1994 to be precise. But also his philosophy, that a scientific idea needs to be falsifiable, is dead. And luckily so, because it was utterly impractical. In practice, scientists can’t falsify theories. That’s because any theory can be amended in hindsight so that it fits new data. Don’t roll your eyes – updating your knowledge in response to new information is scientifically entirely sound procedure. But she qualifies: Even in his worst moments Popper never said a theory is scientific just because it’s falsifiable. That’s Popper upside-down and clearly nonsense. Unfortunately, upside-down Popper now drives theory-development, both in cosmology and in high energy physics. It’s not hard to Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: Previous studies have shown chimps working together in strictly alternating turn-taking scenarios. However, these results are the first to demonstrate that chimpanzees can cope with more complex permutations of turn-taking, with no external cues to help time their behaviour. … ‘Many animals, from insects through birds to primates, take turns during certain types of communication — as do we humans during conversational exchanges. But taking repeated, coordinated turns to achieve a common goal is much less well studied outside the communication domain, despite the possibility that all such behaviours draw on the same underlying cognitive skills for turn-taking. … ‘Besides turn-taking, our task may also provide insights into abilities for cognitive perspective-taking — in other words, the capacity Read More ›

[L]iberal intolerance represents not the self-undermining of liberalism, but a fulfillment of its essential nature. When a chrysalis shelters an insect that later bursts forth from it and leaves it shattered, the chrysalis has in fact fulfilled its true and predetermined end. Liberalism of the purportedly tolerant sort is to militant progressivism as the chrysalis is to the hideous insect. Adrian Vermeule

From paleontologist Julien Benoit: Two of the three studies done in Europe are based on evidence collected in Greece. The third was conducted in Germany. Two of them claim that their fossil finds could be older than the oldest hominin fossils found in Africa. One of the Greek studies was based on a toothless jawbone and a few teeth. The authors claim that they represent an 8 million year old hominin; older than Toumaï. This research has been criticised – by me, among others. As we’ve concluded, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and a jawbone plus a few teeth aren’t enough to counteract all the documentary proof of humans’ African origins. Then came the second study. … The most Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: Anthropologists call this process cultural transmission, and there was a time when it did not exist, when humans or more likely their smaller brained ancestors did not pass on knowledge. Luke Premo, an associate professor of anthropology at Washington State University, would like to know when that was. Writing in the October issue of Current Anthropology, he and three colleagues challenge a widely accepted notion that cultural transmission goes back more than 2 million years. How do we know that there was a time when human “cultural transmission” did not exist? That is, what decision-making guides are we using? Exhibit A in this debate is the Oldowan chopper, a smooth, fist-sized rock with just enough material removed to Read More ›

From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views: What readers most need to understand about Wikipedia is that the editors are almost all pseudonyms of volunteer non-authorities. Many have an axe to grind. They wield power over mass opinion not because they’re objective or knowledgeable but simply by virtue of being dedicated to Wikipedia, on call at a moment’s notice to “fix” any correction they don’t like. The sociological profile there, someone with that kind of free time on his hands, guarantees that the page will attract people unfriendly to an idea like the design hypothesis. Who’s been editing the ID entry lately? Check out the Revision history. The participants’ User pages can be interesting to read. The editors include, Read More ›

From Global News: “And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process.” … Payette was trained as a computer engineer and later became an astronaut and licensed pilot and in 1999 was the first Canadian to board the International Space Station. … She urged her former colleagues in the room to be “vigilant” and aim to make science a topic so well known and understood it is a subject of conversation at cocktail parties in the same way people now talk about the weather or the latest hockey scores. More. If Payette’s former colleagues follow her lead Read More ›

From CBC: BC’s Hogan twins, featured in the documentary Inseparable, are unique in the world. Joined at the head, their brains are connected by a thalamic bridge which gives them neurological capabilities that researchers are only now beginning to understand. Still, they are like other Canadian eleven-year-olds; they attend school, have a favourite pet and are part of a large, loving family determined to live each day to the fullest. Krista and Tatiana Hogan share the senses of touch and taste and even control one another’s limbs. Tatiana can see out of both of Krista’s eyes, while Krista can only see out of one of Tatiana’s. Tatiana controls three arms and a leg, while Krista controls three legs and an Read More ›

  Thank you News for pointing us to the Sean Carroll/Luke Barnes exchange.  Here are some of highlights:   There was an extremely interesting discussion about whether Carroll’s explanation of the existing of the universe (i.e., it’s a brute fact; we have no explanation) is tenable.  Here are the highlights: Carroll starting at 30:13: I don’t think that I am especially bothered by the existence of brute facts in a physicalist or naturalist account of a universe with a beginning. Then Carroll starting at 36:10: there’s this temptation, there’s this feeling like, you know, there must be explanations for things.  And I think that in the context of modern science, modern physics, that’s not the right way to think.  I Read More ›

From blogger at Wintery Knight: Is belief in a creator/designer compatible with belief in Darwinian evolution? One of the ways that theistic evolutionists try to affirm design is by insisting that the design is “front-loaded”. The design for all the information and body plans is somehow embedded in matter. … I attended a Wheaton College philosophy conference where Dr. Michael Murray read a paper advocating for this front-loaded view of design. I raised my hand to ask him a question, “hey, philosophy guy, did God front-load the information in that paper you’re reading, or did you write it yourself?” But the philosophy moderators must have known that I was an engineer, and would talk sense into him, because they never Read More ›

From Unbelievable? at Premier Christian Radio: Eminent cosmologists Sean Carroll and Luke Barnes join Justin for an extended edition of the show debating naturalism, Theism, Big Bang cosmology and fine tuning. Sean, an atheist astrophysicist and author of ‘The Big Picture: on the origins of life, meaning and the universe itself’ argues that naturalism best fits with our scientific understanding. Luke, a Christian astrophysicist and co-author of ‘A Fortunate Universe: life in a finely tuned cosmos’ argues that Theism makes better sense of the evidence. More. Audio here. Sean Carroll at A Preposterous Universe Luke Barnes at A Fortunate Universe See also: Peter Woit on Sean Carroll and science as religion and Free live interactive webinar Saturday with fine-tuning astrophysicist Luke Barnes (U Read More ›

From Emily Thomas at The Conversation: Over the last few decades, a new way of arguing for atheism has emerged. Philosophers of religion such as Michael Martin and Nicholas Everitt have asked us to consider the kind of universe we would expect the Christian God to have created, and compare it with the universe we actually live in. They argue there is a mismatch. Everitt focuses on how big the universe is, and argues this gives us reason to believe the God of classical Christianity doesn’t exist. … The weight of galaxies, and the press of years, seem to sweep us towards atheism. More. The size of the universe would only “sweep us towards atheism” if we wanted to go Read More ›

From a talk advertised at Humane Philosophy: Abstract: This paper examines the effects that a philosophical consideration of nothing has on the debate between theism and atheism. In particular, it argues that surprising conclusions that arise from a close analysis of the concept of nothing result in three claims that have relevance for that debate. Firstly, that on the most plausible demarcation criterion for science, science is constitutionally unable to show theism to be a redundant hypothesis; the debate must take place at the level of metaphysics. Secondly, that on that level, one increasingly popular atheistic response to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing” commits one to rejection of the presumption of atheism. Thirdly, the presumption of Read More ›

From Nancy Atkinson at Seeker: Thomas Kephart from Vanderbilt University and four of his colleagues from around the world wanted to figure out why our universe seemingly has just three dimensions, especially since, as they wrote, “quantum gravity scenarios such as string theory… assume nine or ten space dimensions at the fundamental level.” They combined particles physics with mathematical knot theory to try and work this out, borrowing the concept of “flux tubes,” which are flexible strands of energy that link elementary particles together. … In an environment of extremely high energy, the team said that the quark-gluon plasma would have been an ideal environment for rapid flux tube formation in the very early universe. But, crucially, they noted that Read More ›

From Nicole Mortillaro at CBC: The star is a red M-dwarf, the most common star in our universe. But until now, it wasn’t believed that a gaseous planet of such a size, would ever exist orbiting this type of low-mass star. … The reason astronomers believed that a gas giant this large wasn’t capable of forming around a low-mass star was due to the belief that there isn’t enough material in a cloud of dust and debris that form star systems such as this one. “Perhaps we’ve just been very lucky and found something that is very, very rare,” said Bayliss, lead author of the paper which will be published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Read More ›