Some more reading 21 Jul 2009 While I compose my haiku philosophical masterpieces, read these links: Douglas Kell gives an account of the problems of reverse engineering biochemical networks in biology here. It’s not just a matter of curve fitting to data. Thinking is Real gives a fair discussion of the debate between meself and PZ Marlargl on accommodationism. The Boston Globe reports on apparent racial profiling of African American academics at Harvard. Some University of Iowa rediscover that the nature-nurture distinction is without merit. Dispersal of Darwin has an account of some leading historians of biology meeting in Cambridge. This is a series, in which Dan Dennett, among others, makes an appearance. And surprise, surprise, creationists lie in order to misrepresent historians again in another creationist propaganda piece. Biology Creationism and Intelligent Design Genetics Race and politics Religion
Australian stuff On tribalism 25 Sep 201424 Nov 2022 Humans evolved in tribes, our species’ equivalent of the general primate troop structure. This meant that members of the tribe benefited from shared resources, the protection of the group and the inherited knowledge of the tribe. It also meant that we will natively and naively defend our group against others,… Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design The problem of foreknowledge 28 Jun 2010 So, following on from my previous post on theism and science, let’s consider another aspect of the problem: foreknowledge. How could God know what would occur if the universe is fundamentally, by which we mean at the quantum mechanical level, indeterminate? We know from chaos theory (and chaos is determinate,… Read More
Philosophy On dictionaries, movements and rhetorical flourishes 9 Feb 2011 Lately, PZ Myers has been on a tear. He has rejected what he calls “Dictionary Atheism”. I have to admit, he has a way with words. I love it that he can come up with such things as the Courtier’s Reply, his Complexity Design Argument, and so forth. It’s fun… Read More
Now you’ve gone and done it. Larry has picked up on that article on accommodationism (by “fair,” I assume you meant something halfway between “good” and “bad”*) and will now cite your endorsement of it as proof that accommodationism is anti-science. * Kidding aside, did you really think that was a fair assessment of the accommodationist side of the argument?