Category Archives: Science

It’s always the naturalism that blinds.

One reason I post decreasingly often at BioLogos (and also at Uncommon Descent) is that it seems that all origins sites (except this one, so far) eventually¬† become populated by a bevy of science-orientated positivists. These post on every vaguely physically-orientated subject, quite often picking on every sentence of a post and making criticisms grounded on the standard materialist line. They usually support each other whether claiming to be atheists or Christians (or ex-Christians – though seldom ex-atheists), and their main aim seems to be to drive home the message that “Science disproves that God acts in nature.” The net result is that anybody with the temerity to explore how … Continue reading

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology, Theology of nature | 16 Comments

Happy 2019 – lots forward to which to look…

I’m afraid things are still rather slack on the Hump post front, though not on the work front generally: I did a review of N.T. Wright’s fantastic chapter on Christ and the Cosmos¬† over at Peaceful Science; I got the indexing finished on God’s Good Earth, which means it’s now actually in press, and I’m simply awaiting news on availability (and price); and I’ve been beavering away on the new book, to accompany (one hopes) those on Genealogical Adam by Josh Swamidass (due out November) and Andrew Loke (due out I have no idea).

Posted in Creation, Science | Leave a comment

What isn’t homologous converges

I took part in a discussion over at Peaceful Science a week or two ago, in which the slam dunk evidence of nested hierarchies for evolution was (not for the first time) being disputed – by me, amongst others.

Posted in Creation, Science | 1 Comment

Final causes and Brexit

I think what irks me most about the scientistic mindset is how much it takes for granted about the world, as if needing no explanation – things like logic, reliable human faculties and so on.

Posted in Creation, Politics and sociology, Science, Theology | 2 Comments

No computation without teleology

Support for the suggestion in my last post, that we are likely to be missing significant biological truths by not recognising Aristotelian formal and final causation, comes from a philosophical direction in a recent article by Thomist analytic philosopher Ed Feser .

Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology | 16 Comments

The shape of things to come

Reader Wayne Fair kindly sent me a link to this overview article on morphogenetic fields, which has nothing (directly, at least) to do with Rupert Sheldrake or telepathy, but which does address an important and under-investigated subject. The author of this review article, Michael Levin, is particularly interested in the highly practical goal of organ regeneration after trauma or surgery, and the theoretical basis of form is closely tied into equally important medical issues such as the causes of cancer.

Posted in Creation, Science | 2 Comments

Free will and final causation

In a Peaceful Science thread continuing the discussion of the view mentioned in my last post, John Harshman criticises what he calls the incoherence of the very idea of free will.

Posted in Adam, Philosophy, Science, Theology, Theology of nature | Leave a comment

The noble savage

A guy called Jeremy Christian has posted his own view of “Adam and Eve and all that” on Peaceful Science, delighted to find something in Genealogical Adam that mirrored thoughts he’d been having for a long time. I’ve not interacted much with him there, but would like to discuss one area of agreement and disagreement in more depth here.

Posted in Adam, Creation, Genealogical Adam, Politics and sociology, Science, Theology | Leave a comment

The Indus Valley and randomness

YouTube, somehow tapping into my brainwaves, suggested this video to me, about the effort to interpret the alphabetic inscriptions of the Indus Valley civilization.

Posted in Creation, Genealogical Adam, Science, Theology | 3 Comments

The happiness of creation

My wife was preparing for a Bible study yesterday, and we were discussing whether “blessed” or “happy” is the better translation in the beatitudes of Matthew 5. It turns out to have some relevance for the understanding of the theology of nature.

Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology, Theology of nature | Leave a comment