Over at NPR, psychology professor Tania Lombrozo of the University of California, Berkeley, is highly incensed at the fact that even in this modern day and age, 40 percent of Americans say that they would not vote for a presidential candidate who was an atheist. Professor Lombrozo puts this down to the widespread popular belief that immoral behavior is only averted by religious belief – an assumption she stoutly rejects, citing an article titled, Good Minus God (New York Times, December 18, 2011) by philosophy professor Louise Antony, of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who argues that moral norms are true regardless of whether or not God exists, and who concludes: “If ‘good’ is to have normative force, it must Read More ›

From the BBC: In many ways they were a lot like us. In fact they were so similar, our species actually interbred with theirs. Nevertheless there were some differences. One stands out: they had weirdly large eyes. On the face of it, big eyes sound like a good thing. Presumably, having bigger eyes meant the Neanderthals could see better than us. But according to one controversial theory, Neanderthals’ big eyes played a key role in their demise. The theory goes that, unlike us, they could not devote large parts of their brain to developing complex social networks. So when they were faced with major threats, such as a changing climate or competition from modern humans, they were at a disadvantage. Read More ›

In my last post I linked to an article in which several atheists discuss how they deal with the lack of meaning in the universe.  In response Seversky asks: What is meant by “meaning” in this context? To me, it sounds like a purpose conceived in the mind of an intelligent being, in this case God. So what you are saying is that unless another intelligent being has a purpose in mind for you, your existence is worthless and meaningless? So, a question, why should you only have value or worth or meaning if it exists in the mind of another intelligence. What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself? After all, if God has a purpose, Read More ›

Canadian cosmologist Don Page has written, “In summary, I think the evidence from fine tuning is ambiguous, since the probabilities depend on the models.” Some have questioned this, and I asked physicist Rob Sheldon who writes to say, Don Page is exactly correct. Many, though not all, of these fine-tuning arguments have no way to measure the domain, and without that, specifying the range doesn’t turn it into fine tuning. Let us suppose that your name is Robert Green, and you Google your name and find out that there are exactly 256 Robert Greens in the phone book. Is this evidence of fine tuning or not? You know the range–256–but you don’t know the domain–the number of potential Robert Greens Read More ›

Further to: New call for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (The main problem the extended evolutionary synthesis creates for Darwinism is that evolution happens in many different ways, not just their way): From the paper: By contrast, the EES regards the genome as a sub-system of the cell designed by evolution to sense and respond to the signals that impinge on it. Organisms are not built from genetic ‘instructions’ alone, but rather self-assemble using a broad variety of inter-dependent resources. A reader writes to ask, 1. “designed by evolution”? That means that design is so obvious that you can not get rid of it. But you can not represent “evolution” as an agent because “evolution” is not an agent, a force, Read More ›

Next in my “things that make you stupid” series (see here, here and here), is the gobsmacking stupidity of the atheists quoted in this article.  The lack of intellectual honesty on display is astounding.  Atheists of the world accept where the logic of your premises takes you.  Stop spouting self-contradicting pseudo-profundities.  It’s embarrassing.   HT:  Heartlander

Wasn’t suppose to happen in the old days, right? But it turns out to be surprisingly common. From ScienceDaily: The common baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) is used to make bread, wine and beer, and is the laboratory workhorse for a substantial proportion of research into molecular and cell biology. It was also the first non-bacterial living thing to have its genome sequenced, back in 1996. However, when the sequence of that genome emerged it appeared that the scientists were seeing double – the organism seemed to have two very different versions of many of its genes. How could this have happened? Researchers from the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) Barcelona, Spain, writing in the Open Access journal PLOS Biology in Read More ›

To replace the Modern Synthesis: The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the name given to the school of thought which is now broadly accepted by evolutionary scientists around the world. Formal amalgamation of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s genetics and August Weismann’s germ plasm theory was key to the Modern Synthesis, but other advances in population genetics and palaeontology were also important. Further to: Larry Moran misses the point about Gunther Witzany (The perspective of the critics of the modern synthesis—so far from being shunned—is now one that attracts an “outer circle.” Hardly the sign of a failing cause): There’s a new paper, “The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions,” Proceedings of the Royal Read More ›

Here. Now, let us collect a well-known live example, Lewontin, in NYRB 1997, reviewing Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted world; here, with my annotations: >>. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads [–> notice, the context of intended indoctrination, with a hint of being backed up by secularist institutional power to enforce such indoctrination] we [–> who? the Evolutionary Materialist elites, that’s who] must first get an incorrect view out . . .   the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> note the ready equation of ethical theism with ignorance and irrationality], the demons [–> notice, equating the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, Read More ›

Kirk Durston writes: [S]cience reveals that nature, composed of space, time, matter, and energy, had a beginning. Scientism requires a natural explanation for the origin of nature, a logical impossibility. One cannot provide a natural explanation for the origin of nature without assuming the existence of nature in that “natural” explanation — a circular fallacy. Yet another way materialism makes people stupid.  It requires them to say there is a natural explanation for nature itself.

From ScienceDaily: Washington State University researchers say environmental factors are having an underappreciated effect on the course of disease and evolution by prompting genetic mutations through epigenetics, a process by which genes are turned on and off independent of an organism’s DNA sequence. Their assertion is a dramatic shift in how we might think of disease and evolution’s underlying biology and “changes how we think about where things come from,” said Michael Skinner, founding director of the Center for Reproductive Biology in WSU’s School of Biological Sciences. Why does this remind one of Further to “Philosopher of science: Schoolbook Darwinism needs replacement” (Witzany: All these concepts that dominated science for half a century are falsified now)? This, said Skinner, suggests Read More ›

Sometimes the name of a book is just waaaaay cool, and King Alfred’s Book of Dooms takes the prize. But that (while showing that I am not totally immune to the coolness factor  😉 ) is besides the main point. The main issue is that for several weeks now, we have been dealing with radical secularism and its agenda for law, the state and justice. Especially, in light of the triple challenge of state power, lawfulness and sound leadership: What is justice, what is its foundation, and — where Alfred the Great and his Book of Dooms come in — how was this emplaced at the historical root of the Common Law tradition that the law and state framework of Read More ›

Further to “Philosopher of science: Schoolbook Darwinism needs replacement” (Witzany: All these concepts that dominated science for half a century are falsified now): Over at University of Toronto biochemist Larry Moran’s Sandwalk blog, we are informed, Here’s why you can ignore Günther Witzany Günther Witzany is one of those people who think the Modern Synthesis needs to be overthrown but he missed the real revolution that took place in the late 1960s. He’s part of The Third Way crowd that includes Denis Noble and Jim Shapiro [see Physiologists fall for the Third Way and The Third Fourth Way]. … He was not one of the Altenberg 16 but he clearly wants to be part of the outer circle. It’s not Read More ›

Closing our religion news coverage for the week, we have Steve Pinker on faitheism. Readers may remember Pinker from this: A truly ethical bioethics should not bog down research in red tape, moratoria, or threats of prosecution based on nebulous but sweeping principles such as “dignity,” “sacredness,” or “social justice.” … Here he is on the dangers of “faitheism” (a Jerry Coyne coinage): The backlash against the New Atheists has given rise to a new consensus among faith-friendly intellectuals, and their counterattack is remarkably consistent across critics with little else in common. The new atheists are too shrill and militant, they say, and just as extreme as the fundamentalists they criticize. They are preaching to the choir, and only driving Read More ›

From the Christian Scientific Society: Philosopher J. P. Moreland says no: “The irrelevance of neuroscience for formulating and addressing the fundamental problems in philosophy/theology of mind.” In the first part of my talk, I will lay out the autonomy and authority theses in philosophy and identify the central questions in the four key areas of the mind/body problem. In the second section, I will show why neuroscience cannot even formulate, much less address these central questions. I will also clarify what it means to say that two or more theories are empirically equivalent and go on to argue that when it comes to the neuroscience of mirror neurons, (1) strict physicalism (2) mere property dualism and (3) substance dualism are Read More ›