Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Intelligent Design

World science journalists’ conference panelists in a snit over “science denial”

There is a simple solution to these science writers’ problem: Lose the pom poms and the loud hailer. Read what you are writing. The rest of us have. The only thing you are justified in being so certain of is your own certainty. And your certainty doesn’t seem to be contagious. Read More ›

Dr. Alexander Responds on Nabokov

In Science writer defends Nabokov from the suggestion that he was not a Darwinist the UD News Desk noticed Victoria N. Alexander’s paper defending Nabokov’s Darwinian bona fides.  Dr. Alexander has responded with this comment: Thanks for bring attention to my paper. Nabokov is a complex thinker. That’s one of the reasons why you’re having a hard time resolving what appear to be contradictions in some of the things I’ve written about. His views are neither completely like your own nor completely like mine, and it takes a bit of distancing to be able to appreciate his views on their own terms. One of the issues noted above is whether or not Nabokov critiqued Darwin. In Nabokov’s day the neoDarwinists were Read More ›

C S Lewis on The Magician’s Twin . . . a video critique of Scientism

Let me cross-post and adapt, in further following up on the Nye-Ham debate, through exploring and replying to the underlying problem of scientism . . . the ideologisation of science: _____________ >> The following video critique of Scientism (science turned into ideology or quasi-religion and means of gaining power) based on C S Lewis’s thought, is worth a pause to watch and ponder: Food for thought, especially as we further reflect on the Nye-Ham debate and its sobering implications. END Posted by GEM of The Kairos Initiative at 6:30 am >> ______________ Let us think carefully, lest we make the error of the sorcerer’s apprentice and let loose forces we cannot control. END

Gravity in Elfland Redux

  Isaac Newton candidly admitted that his laws of motion were more of a description than an explanation of gravitational phenomena: Then from these forces [of gravity], by other propositions which are also mathematical, we deduce the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea. I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being Read More ›