Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Methodological naturalism

The Intelligent Design Audiopaper Project

I was thinking recently, about how many audiobooks are consumed by people these days. I would guess that the main reason behind this consumption is convenience. Many people just don’t have the time, or don’t create the time, to really sit down and get their head in a book. But I understand that for many, it can also be due to personal preference, financial considerations, lack of space, being visually impaired, or learning difficulties. If non of these issues are barriers, I would always encourage reading (and ideally taking notes), rather than simply listening. On balance, the evidence does suggest that good reading is a much more efficient way of retaining information than listening, on its own. In general, listening Read More ›

Michael Egnor: Science can and does point to God’s existence

Egnor: Note that science studies natural effects and does not and cannot specify whether the causes must be natural or supernatural. To constrain science to the search for natural causes is to introduce inherent error into scientific investigation — the error is that if supernatural causes exist, then science would be blind to them and therefore would not be good science. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature. Read More ›

Paul Nelson on methodological naturalism and scientists who don’t believe in it

Nelson: Now, you may think MN is unnecessary, or even unsound, for the practice of science. (Another time, I hope to discuss the surprising fact that many atheist scientists and philosophers disagree strongly with MN, when MN is proclaimed as an unconditional rule.) The National Academy, however, is not listening to you, nor are federal courts, Read More ›

Rob Sheldon defends sociologist Steve Fuller against Nathaniel Comfort

Sheldon: Post-modernists, which Comfort seems to identify with, have a valid point about scientism's ideological foundation on MN, but rather than rationally correct the error, as Phillip Johnson spent 29 years doing, they treat it as an ethical lapse justifying their own ideological, irrational behavior. Read More ›

Design Disquisitions: Updated YouTube Playlists

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 ›

Design Disquisitions: Jeffrey Koperski on Two Bad Ways and Two Good Ways to Attack ID (Part 1): Two Bad Ways

Here’s my new article at Design Disquisitions. Enjoy: In the next two (potentially three) articles I’ll be taking an in-depth look at an excellent paper written by Jeffrey Koperski, a philosopher of science at Saginaw Valley State University. Koperski has written about ID in several publications (1), which I highly recommend, and he takes a balanced and sensible approach to this topic. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t accept ID, but takes a constructively critical stance, so his work is well worth engaging with. As one can tell from the title of the paper, Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design and Two Goods Ones(2), Koperski critically analyses two common criticisms of ID, suggesting that they are highly dubious lines of argument. He then Read More ›

Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (1)

A couple of days ago I posted my opening statement to a formal online debate I’m currently engaged in with Christian neo-Darwinist Francis Smallwood at Musings Of A Scientific Nature. My opening statement can be found here, and his here. What follows are my opening thoughts on the question whether ID is ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’, or a valid scientific theory. At the bottom of this post you can find a link to Francis’ first response to me on his blog. Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo?‘ Joshua Gidney-Opening As I have already outlined in my opening statements, intelligent design theory states ‘that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are Read More ›