Video

 Or here. Note: Behe has a new book coming out. See New book from Michael Behe on how today’s DNA findings “devolve” Darwin See also: The bombardier beetle, the toad, and – after all these years – Mike Behe

Using modern science. Would his conclusions be the same? Here:  The participants are Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson (yes) vs. Dr. Herman Mays (no) The topics are from Jeanson’s book, Replacing Darwin: The NEW Origin of Species “Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson holds a PhD in cell and developmental Biology from Harvard University. He serves as a research biologist, author, and speaker with Answers in Genesis and formerly conducted research with the Institute for Creation Research.” Herman Mays: “I have a PhD in evolutionary ecology from the University of Kentucky and studied the mating system of the Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) for my thesis research. I’ve been a postdoctoral fellow, assistant professor and a museum curator in zoology at Cincinnati Museum Center. While at Read More ›

 Hat tip: Ken Francis See also: J. P. Moreland on why minds could not simply evolve somehow

From multiverse cosmologist Sean Carroll we learn that eighty videos are about to hit YouTube: Some of you might be familiar with the Moving Naturalism Forward workshop I organized way back in 2012. For two and a half days, an interdisciplinary group of naturalists (in the sense of “not believing in the supernatural”) sat around to hash out the following basic question: “So we don’t believe in God, what next?” How do we describe reality, how can we be moral, what are free will and consciousness, those kinds of things. Participants included Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Terrence Deacon, Simon DeDeo, Daniel Dennett, Owen Flanagan, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, Janna Levin, Massimo Pigliucci, David Poeppel, Nicholas Pritzker, Alex Rosenberg, Don Ross, and Read More ›

This needs to go in the Sci-tech watch department for UD: Not directly relevant to ID debates, but a glimpse at the wonders of our world that are well worth pondering. END

Don Johnson is the author of Programming of Life and Programming of Life 2: the Earth These vids introduce the ideas.   See also: Don Johnson’s lecture on “Bioinformatics: The Information in Life”

For the last year or so I have been accumulating quite a number of YouTube playlists. Recently I’ve been trying to get it a little more organised and cleaned up, so I thought I would point readers to it as a resource. At the moment I have just under 40 individual playlists. I have created playlists for the key individuals in the ID debate (pro and anti-ID) and also have playlists for different issues that come up (e.g. Irreducible complexity, methodological naturalism etc). There’s also one covering the Dover trial, and any lectures and debates on the subject. For any other videos that don’t readily fit into other categories, I have a playlist of miscellaneous videos: ID YouTube Playlists I’ll Read More ›

I’ve found that a lot of people who are interested in Intelligent Design are nonetheless unaware of the mathematics behind it. Therefore, I decided to do some videos teaching the basic ideas.
Read More ›

John Searle gives a nice talk at Google about real intelligence vs. machine intelligence. The conversation is interesting for a number of reasons, including some historical background of Searle’s famous “Chinese Room Argument.”
Read More ›

Video: [youtube ke_OgE_V6tQ] (Please understand this i/l/o the context of complacency, attack and the lesson of Jan Sobieski. Ask yourself, in your heart is our civilisation worth fighting for given the likely alternatives (or, does it deserve to die . . . or be utterly “transformed”), and why or why not?) Ponder, our geostrategic challenges, and how our underlying worldviews . . . whether or not dressed up in a lab coat . . . and deep-rooted perceptions shape how we act, whilst geostrategic realities (and some pretty ruthless operators out there) shape consequences: Where do we go from here? What is the likely consequence? END

Video: [youtube SC9Hx3WpsCk] Blurb at the Amazon page for the book: >>Throughout his distinguished and unconventional career, engineer-turned-molecular-biologist Douglas Axe has been asking the questions that much of the scientific community would rather silence. Now, he presents his conclusions in this brave and pioneering book. Axe argues that the key to understanding our origin is the “design intuition”—the innate belief held by all humans that tasks we would need knowledge to accomplish can only be accomplished by someone who has that knowledge. For the ingenious task of inventing life, this knower can only be God. Starting with the hallowed halls of academic science, Axe dismantles the widespread belief that Darwin’s theory of evolution is indisputably true, showing instead that a Read More ›

In this next video from the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism (AM-Nat) conference, Rope Kojonen defends methodological naturalism by suggesting that the foundation for its objections is the belief that science is the only valid way of knowing.
Read More ›

In the next installment of videos from the AM-Nat conference, Jim LeMaster discusses Francis Bacon and David Hume, and shows their issues with teleological thinking in science, and why the arguments against analogies don’t measure up. We have a conference coming up in November focused on biology, and another in February focused on business and technology, so be sure to check out the AM-Nat website for more information on conference registrations and abstract submissions.

In the next video from the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism conference, Jonathan Bartlett describes the philosophical underpinnings of methodological naturalism and why they fall short. For more information about the Alternatives to Methodological Naturalism (AM-Nat) conference series, see the website. We have two more conferences coming in the next year!

In this presentation from the AM-Nat conference, Mario Lopez points out the possibility that design itself may be able to serve as a neutral descriptor of what counts as science, where here “design” serves as a general description, not necessarily Intelligent Design.