Paul Nelson examines the available evidence suggesting, “that Sagan’s understanding of design detection was far subtler and more open-ended than many realize.”
Tag: Paul Nelson
New Video Presentation on YouTube: Intelligent Design & Scientific Conservatism
I have recently posted a new video on my Intelligent Design YouTube channel. In this video I discuss several areas in the philosophy of science and modern evolutionary biology, and their relationship to ID. These thoughts were prompted initially by an interesting paper by philosopher of science Jeffrey Koperski ‘Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Read More…
Tributes to Richard Lewontin (1919 – 2021)
Paul Nelson: Lewontin opposed the facile storytelling of much of sociobiology, with its invocation of hypothetical genes for equally hypothetical behavioral traits. The fact that his opposition stemmed in part from his politics is no indictment; his evidential critique holds its value, or stands on its own two legs, independently of the Marxism. Show me the actual data, he would say, or stop the storytelling.
A contradiction in Charles Marshall’s “white smoker” origin-of-life argument?
Paul Nelson: … unless I misunderstand (always a live possibility), we’re back to postulating a “freak environment,” meaning the OOL explanation is a one-off event after all. The chemical determinism of hundreds of thousands, or millions of alkaline chimneys operating in parallel disappears, and we’re back to one very lucky setting.
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,
Paul Nelson on why building animals is hard
Standard evolutionary theory (usually known as Darwinism) makes it easier for an incurious teacher to stumble from one school year to the next. No wonder educrats hate people like Paul Nelson for messing with it, right or wrong.
Paul Nelson remembers Phillip Johnson: Not like he’d expected
Hot tip from a sometime talent scout: They seldom look like they should. That’s a sign of authenticity. Experience looks different from packaging.
Who knew that Bret Weinstein would be a bigger Darwinist than Richard Dawkins?
Not Paul Nelson, if you go by his account of the discussion between Weinstein, the biology prof driven by “woke” students from Evergreen State University and iconic Darwinist Richard Dawkins: I witnessed something last week that I never thought I’d see. Richard Dawkins, pressed to affirm the explanatory power of Darwinian reasoning for human life, 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 Read More…
Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (2)
Some readers here may be aware of an online debate I’m taking part in with a neo-Darwinist (and friend), Francis Smallwood. Francis blogs at Musings of a Scientific Nature. We are currently discussing the issue of whether intelligent design is just a recent strain of creationism, and whether it is a legitimate scientific theory. What Read More…