Naturalism
Methodological naturalism does far more than “not study the supernatural.”
Science can be done “by ignoring God,” but what follows? — a response to Torley
The one advantage the space alien has over Bigfoot
Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (8) – Francis Smallwood’s Fourth Response
My neo-Darwinian friend, Francis Smallwood, has now written a response to my previous instalment in our dialogue. If you want to read it, go here. Below is a small excerpt of the response by Francis. You can read his full response by going to his blog. Follow the link at the bottom of the page. I think that his latest reply is considerably better than his previous writings. Over the past year or so his critique of ID has become sharper and more substantive, and I think he makes some very good points. I still happen to think he is largely mistaken though. It is well worth engaging with this one, so please do discuss some of his points either Read More ›
Is The Skeptical Zone an instance of Internet III?
Time to retire superstition in science
Never mind Scientific American is into Satan, a New York Times columnist is into ghosts
Nancy Pearcey on why naturalist atheism produces boring literature where nothing much happens
Least promising book advert of the year: Overcoming subhuman behavior with Christ
Language fraud alert: There is nothing “controversial” about materialism
Why methodological naturalism is bad for science
Latest consciousness theory: Rocks have minds?
Tom Bethell: Darwinism is mirror image of creationism
VIDEO: Jon Rittenhouse’s BB ST 450 course lecture on Scientism
Ran across this Biola video lecture (in course BB ST 450) on scientism in a thread from a few months back, HT BA77 as usual. I think it is well worth pondering: [youtube lnxrmF9O1ko] So, thoughts? END