Search
-
Recent Posts
- What I think I know about life in the deep past 26/04/2026
- How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time) 24/04/2026
- To Ur is human, to dig divine. 18/04/2026
- Prayers for peace 13/04/2026
- Temporal resonances 11/04/2026
Recent Comments
- Jon Garvey on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
- Steve on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
- Jon Garvey on Before knowing your enemy recognise his enmity
- Ben on Before knowing your enemy recognise his enmity
- Jon Garvey on Before knowing your enemy recognise his enmity
Post Archive
Category Archives: Science
More on nominalism v realism
I foolishly allowed myself to sidetrack the discussion of my own recent post on these two major philosophical alternatives (nominalism and realism) into a conversation with Lou Jost on the TOE itself. I blame the fact that I was preparing the piece on neutralism and adaptationism, which nudged me out of philosophy mode. Not that the discussion hasn’t been interesting, even useful, in itself, but it has perhaps prevented the theists here from grappling with the important issues of the nominalist-realist question. So I want to spend just a few more words on it before moving on to another significant philosophical issue in a different post.
Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology
23 Comments
Maintaining neutrality
Blogger Bilbo, an occasional visitor here, has paid a rare compliment to biochemist and creationist-witchfinder Larry Moran for his clear explanation of the difference between neutral theory and genetic drift.
Posted in Creation, Science
18 Comments
Implications of the origin of non-species
I’ve been reflecting a little more on some issues I raised in a reply to Merv on Eddie’s thread. It builds on the ongoing consideration of the Aristotelian idea of formal causation, but the involves more global implications of the philosophical divide between realism and nominalism – broadly, whether there are genuine universal “types” or just multitudes of individual things that we humans lump together for convenience.
Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology
82 Comments
Are models smart or dumb?
May I point you to yet another mind-expanding blog by The OFloinn, looking at the limitations of scientific models and whence they arise. Note particularly how he categorises phenomena into organised simplicity which can be understood in detail (like Newton’s Law of Universal gravity – though that only describes what gravity does, leaving its nature as a magic force); disorganised complexity which can only be understood statistically (like the n-body problem, chaotic systems and so on) and which depend (note that word well) on the individual components being unknown and independent; and organised complexity, where there are multiple interrelated factors, which can be understood neither by simple individual laws nor simple statistical … Continue reading
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
2 Comments
Recognising cultural blinkers
There is a current BioLogos thread on the recent debate between atheist Bill Nye and Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham. In it, our own Lou Jost continues to try and educate the benighted theists by responsing to John Walton’s affirmation of his shared belief (with Ham) in the inspiration of Genesis. Lou complains that Genesis “screams out ‘cultural document’”, and in a later post slips in the “nothing buttery” that C S Lewis noted as a hallmark of modern materialism by amending it to “just a cultural document.”
Posted in Philosophy, Politics and sociology, Science, Theology
124 Comments
The creation theology of the psalms and its application
I’ve just read an excellent recent paper by J Richard Middleton, comparing the views of creation given in Psalms 8 and 104. If you don’t have access to Academia.edu you might not be able to access it, which is a shame as it has a lot to say on the view of creation theology I’ve been developing here over the last three years or so. That view differs from some of the common church teaching on “fallen creation”, but only because it recovers historical Christian doctrine. But it differs far more from the novel and quite incompatible theologies commonly presented in modern Evangelical theistic evolution and – as the last … Continue reading
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
Leave a comment
Must-read on Feser by Aquinas
I’ve spent a number of posts digging around various bits of Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics, especially with regard to causation. Notable examples here and the most recent, commenting on a piece by Ed Feser, here. Why does it matter?
Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology
5 Comments
Building bridges from Aquinas to ID
I mentioned in my recent post, linking to Ed Feser’s piece on “finality”, that he “only makes” one brief attack on ID, linking it to William Paley’s natural theology. Given the nature of the essay as an overview, it seems a good source from which to examine how fundamental the differences between A-T thinking and modern Intelligent Design theory really are, and whether an accommodation could be possible or helpful. I’ve attempted this in a small way before but I’ll try to develop it a bit, and repetition isn’t necessarily harmful anyway.
Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science
Leave a comment
Scientism as individual pathology
An interesting snippet caught my ear on the BBC news today. It was about a poetry competition organised by Yale University and London’s UCL for medical and engineering students. The iniator was cardiologist and published poet Prof John Martin, and his motivation for doing so: “Medical students are at risk of becoming ‘intellectually brutalized’…conditioned to focus upon the microscopic at the expense of the holistic.”
Posted in Creation, Medicine, Science
4 Comments
Must-read on teleological evolution by TOF
For the second day running, rather than write my own article I’ll point to this excellent critique by The OFloinn. I’ll get round to another on Aquinas and ID, I promise. In passing I note that TOF uses the example of locusts and lizards “going Hulk” and majors in his piece on James Shapiro’s “View from the 21st Century.” Since he doesn’t reference my article is this not direct evidence for convergence?
Posted in Science
2 Comments