Category Archives: Politics and sociology

I am not now and have never been…

Posted on 10/09/2011 by Jon Garvey

I’ve chanced upon another reference to my post about Signature in the Cell, this time from Casey Luskin on Evolution News and Views. As a blogger I’m very aware of the dictum that “No publicity is bad publicity”, since the previous mention on Uncommon Descent boosted my readership from about three to … rather more. So if Casey’s post brings you here, then welcome. Do say hello.

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

Peer review problem in science fiction

Posted on 18/07/2011 by Jon Garvey

For a bit of relaxation I have just re-read an old sci-fi paperback from my shelves, Isaac Asimov’s Pebble in the Sky. I was struck, for some reason, by the following passage, describing how an archaeologist of the distant future, named Arvadan, had suffered the unprecedented indignity of having his senior dissertation rejected (peremptorily) by the Journal of the Galactic Archaeological Society:

Posted in Politics and sociology, Science | Leave a comment

A day of darkness (maybe)

Posted on 14/07/2011 by Jon Garvey

In a previous post I looked at Neodarwinism as a self-contained belief system which, in essence, cannot be falsified. Today I want to consider what would happen if it were shown to be mistaken. Nearly all the criticism of the Modern Synthesis, outside Biblical Creationism, arises from the mathematical improbability of random mutation having the creative ability to produce the raw material for natural selection to work on. As far back as 1966, mathematicians at the Wistar Conference cast serious doubt on this. The immediate response of the biologists present will be familiar even today: since evolution has occurred, the maths (rather than the MS) must be wrong. Nevertheless one … Continue reading →

Posted in Creation, Politics and sociology, Science | 1 Comment

The Power of Myth

Posted on 08/07/2011 by Jon Garvey

Everybody interested in evolution ought to read evolutionary biologist Arlin Stoltzfus’s remarkable series on the establishment of the Modern Synthesis (Neodarwinism) as an unassailable and infinitely flexible (though factually mistaken) dogma. Telic Thoughts has actually run a thread on it, and they, like me, picked up the link from a quotation by Mike Gene. Thanks Mike. It’s worth another link for those who missed it.

Posted in Politics and sociology, Science | 1 Comment

Temporarily over on BioLogos

Posted on 10/06/2011 by Jon Garvey

I’ve been a bit remiss in updating this blog. But in the meantime I’ve a new essay on the BioLogos website. It would have been here but they asked first…

Posted in Creation, Politics and sociology, Science, Theology | 1 Comment

Will you, won’t you?

Posted on 10/03/2011 by Jon Garvey

Britain must be one of the only places in the world where you can hear a radio programme in which 3 philosophy professors discuss free will with an informed chairman. Free will poses a difficulty for naturalism because although we consciously make decisions – especially moral ones – every day, it is difficult to account for them. The determinism of natural law would suggest free choice, and so moral accountability, to be impossible. Yet introducing the only other naturalistic mechanism, randomness (by invoking quantum physics for example) would, even if plausible, still exclude moral responsibility because ones will would be the “victim” of external random forces. So there seems no … Continue reading →

Posted in Creation, Politics and sociology, Science, Theology | 1 Comment

Diversity Rules, OK?

Posted on 02/03/2011 by Jon Garvey

Online comments on the recent case in which a Pentecostal couple were rejected as foster-parents tend to degenerate into the usual slanging matches over homophobia. But what the judges’ ruling seems to concern is not homosexual orientation as such, but equality and diversity legislation. They cite regulations to ensure that children “are provided with foster care services which value diversity and promote equality”. This is considerably more open-ended than the question of harming sexually confused children. Mr and Mrs Johns themselves insisted that they would love any child unconditionally, but would not consent to endorse the homosexual lifestyle. They also pointed at that the issue was scarcely likely to arise in the … Continue reading →

Posted in Politics and sociology | 1 Comment