Philosophy

I think that sometimes, it helps to pull back a bit and reflect on the meta . . . philosophical . . . issues connected to design, mind, being, cause and effect, what it would mean to be a necessary being, etc. I have also been thinking in that context, that the modern, modal ontological argument championed by Plantinga (and with some roots in Godel etc) is a good place to begin from, and so, I have blogged on that here, beginning: __________ >> Perhaps the most controversial of the major arguments pointing to God is the ontological argument. Many think it is little more than verbal trickery, and are highly dismissive. Others are fond of parodying and dismissing it. But, Read More ›

I have debated Darwinists for many years, and I don’t debate them in order to persuade them, but rather to humiliate their claims as best I can, and this is done by arguing from the most unassailable positions possible. A few months ago, in a discussion on The Fundamental Law of Intelligent Design, I pleaded with Barry to pose a question to Nick Matzke, and this was the result: A Statistics Question for Nick Matzke. We didn’t ask Nick, “are 500 coins heads designed” or “are 500 coins heads intelligently designed” or “are 500 coins heads intelligently designed, and therefore isn’t ID science” we asked: If you came across a table on which was set 500 coins (no tossing involved) Read More ›

This past month has been quite busy, and I have had but little time to respond to some questions on foundations of reality and modern theistic arguments from a budding young philosopher. (BTW, his 3 month post op check up has been positive I take occasion to publicly thank St. Georges Hospital, London and others.) One of the issues that has come up is the link between logic, mathematics, necessary truth and underlying designing mind as credible root of being. Where, we can draw a pivotal lesson from say a watch, which may be accurate but is not truthful, as it computes, but does not contemplate. Minds contemplate, machines only compute, blindly carrying out designed movements constrained by the GIGO Read More ›

It would be an interesting debate as to whether legal decisions by juries are considered science. Does anybody really care whether a jury verdict is called science or non-science? Was the verdict against Jodi Arias for killing Travis Alexander science? Or how about the conviction of Bernie Madoff, is that science? Isn’t it more important that the verdicts delivered are correct and faithful to the facts? Whether the inferences and verdicts can be labeled science or not seems to be extremely irrelevant in the scheme of things. In similar fashion, that has been my view about the debate whether ID is science. A case can be made either way, and if we let something as flimsy as Darwinism and multiverses Read More ›

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: [youtube FPeyJvXU68k] 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

In the OK thread, in comment 50, ID objector Mark Frank has finally laid out the root of ever so many of the objections to the design inference filter. Unsurprisingly, it is a worldview based controlling a priori of materialism: [re EA] #38 [MF, in 50:] I see “chance” as usually meaning to “unpredictable” or “no known explanation”. The unknown explanations may be deterministic elements or genuinely random uncaused events which we just don’t know about. It can also includes things that happen as the result of intelligence – but as a materialist I believe intelligence to be a blend of the determined and random so for me that is not a third type of explanation. But, just what what Read More ›

“Bad design” is one of the most formidable arguments against intelligent design. I’ve responded to this by saying that what constitutes “good design” depends on the goals of the designer. If fuel efficiency is the criteria of good design, then a motorcycle is a better design than an SUV. But some will argue the SUV is a better design for snowy and icy conditions when transporting babies, thus an SUV is a better design. The problem is what constitutes “good design”, and who decides the criteria for good?

[Knowing Elizabeth Liddle, in addition to being a scientist, is a teacher of music theory and an accomplished musician, I thought I’d frame one aspect of the ID discussion in terms of musical ideas and philosophy at TSZ. This essay is a cross post of an discussion originally featured at TSZ.. I thought the discussion there was unusually good relative to the sorts of discussions that usually occur between the UD and TSZ.]

We also have the paradoxical situation where good drama needs a bit of “bad” designed into it. If a great novel told a story with no problems, will it be a good drama?

“Once upon a time there were no problems…there were never any problems or difficulties….they lived happily ever after”.

Read More ›