Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Naturalism

At Scientific American: Why we live in a simulation

This is likely intended as a spoof: "There is nothing in philosophy or science, no postulates, theories or laws, that would predict the emergence of this experience we call consciousness. Natural laws do not call for its existence, and it certainly does not seem to offer us any evolutionary advantages." But it happens to be true. Read More ›

Is this the beginning of deplatforming Stephen Hawking or of an honest evaluation?

Seife: Hawking managed to convince the public that his opinion always mattered. "[H]is comments attracted exaggerated attention even on topics where he had no special expertise," wrote Martin Rees, a close friend and colleague of his, "for instance philosophy, or the dangers from aliens or from intelligent machines." His overweening confidence—and his stubbornness—cost him respect from many of his colleagues, especially late in his career. Read More ›

Math paradoxes show us that the world we live in is not and cannot be purely naturalist

Robert J. Marks sometimes uses the paradox of the smallest “uninteresting” number to illustrate proof by contradiction — that is, by creating paradoxes Read More ›

Larry Krauss at Quillette on Woke science

It’s hard to see how all the Virtue that Krauss recounts will help young members of minority groups today make their way in science, as opposed to creating window dressing jobs for Wokesters. But maybe the window dressing jobs ARE the point of this sort of exercise. Read More ›

NASA stresses naturalist origin of life to kids

Example: In response to a question re space aliens, "“The question presumes that aliens do exist. And again, because we haven’t found any yet, we don’t know if they do. It is possible they may exist, for one simple reason: we exist. Whatever made the likes of bacteria evolve into complex bodies with intelligent brains on Earth may have also occurred on another planet.” Read More ›

A science writer offers some interesting thoughts on free will

It’s interesting that a science writer sees through the most fundamental materialist rot. Unfortunately, it sounds as though he hopes to replace it with a different one. Read More ›

What we don’t know about the universe, according to New Scientist

Back to Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest: A CENTURY ago, if you asked a cosmologist the universe’s age, the answer may well have been “infinite”. It was a neat way to sidestep the question of how it formed, and the idea had been enshrined in 1917 when Albert Einstein presented his model of a static universe through his general theory of relativity. General relativity describes gravity, the force that sculpts the universe, as the result of mass warping its fabric, space-time. In the mid-1920s, astrophysicist George Lemaître showed that according to the theory, the universe wasn’t static but expanding– and would thus have been smaller in the past. Stuart Clark, “Everything we know about the universe – and a few Read More ›

Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne continues to worry about astrology, this time at the New York Times

He seems to have started noticing recently when astrology was touted at the Guardian and the Globe and Mail: In the past couple of days we’ve seen the Guardian tout astrology twice, and now the Globe and Mail. What I’d forgotten is that the New York Times has also been doing it occasionally—certainly more often than the Paper of Record should. For evidence, see Greg Mayer’s survey last year of the NYT’s treatment of astrology. As Greg said: I did a search at the Times’ website for “astrology”, and the results were intriguing, verging on appalling. The first 9 results were all supportive of astrology; and all had appeared since since July 2017. Many treated astrology as a “he said, Read More ›