Search
-
Recent Posts
- On miracles and miracle-workers 05/02/2026
- How did Evangelicals get so phrygian heretical? 02/02/2026
- Forever blowing bubbles 29/01/2026
- Equipping tomorrow’s spiritual warriors? 27/01/2026
- Theophanies and biblical theology 24/01/2026
Recent Comments
- Peter Hickman on On miracles and miracle-workers
- Jon Garvey on Forever blowing bubbles
- Ben on Forever blowing bubbles
- Jon Garvey on Forever blowing bubbles
- Peter Hickman on Forever blowing bubbles
Post Archive
Category Archives: Science
Evolution’s metamorphosis (no caterpillars)
Following on from my post yesterday there is something else significant to be considered if the Neodarwinian paradigm should soon be modified, extended or even swept away altogether. I quoted Jablonka and Lamb’s list of just some of the processes and issues now being incorporated into a twenty-first century view of evolution. Molecular biological insights, new mutational mechanisms, HGT, ecology (including niche construction), behaviour and culture were listed. They might have added developmental issues, epigenetics and other non-genetic inheritance, physiological condiderations as per Denis Noble, symbiosis, hybridisation, etc etc. Some of these are unarguable, others more speculative. But they all serve to make evolution far more complicated, which is, in … Continue reading
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
2 Comments
Cousin Caterpillar
One thing I have in common with Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury – apart from bad hair and a beard – is a love of the unique 60s music of the Incredible String Band. He calls their stuff “holy”, and while I wouldn’t go that far, it is because of them that I discovered the metaphysical poet Thomas Traherne, and made diversity and informality an ideal of my own songwriting. One ISB song was helpful in getting me through the changes and challenges of university, a quirky little thing called Cousin Caterpillar
Posted in Creation, Music, Science, Theology
Leave a comment
In the beginning…
… according to the undirected-evolution TEs, God created chance. Like everything else he sustains it in being moment by moment. But he’s somehow still able to catch himself out with it. It’s a bit like being able to laugh when you tickle yourself, or to pick a random number and then be unable to guess it. It’s not so much that it’s remarkable to be able to do it, but remarkable why he’d bother.
Posted in Creation, Medicine, Science
Leave a comment
Prometheus and cosmology
I’m reproducing here a longish post I’ve just done over at Biologos (#82822), only because posts there are ditched after 6 months and I’d like to preserve it. Ted Davis posted a link to an excellent article by Dennis Danielson, on the prevalent myth that the old “geocentrism” implied anthropocentrism. But it also answered a question to me by PNG about sources for TOF’s claim in his blog series on heliocentrism that Renaissance folks preferred the new views because they elevated man to the celestial realm. My post follows:
Posted in Creation, Prometheus, Science, Theology
Leave a comment
Crossing the tracks
Hmm – a comment of mine on Uncommon Descent seems to have been promoted into a post. Not sure about the thread’s title, but the answer is “Goddidit.” I feel I’m changing into a design…
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
Leave a comment
Colour vision
The second half of the Attenborough series on vertebrates, which I watched last night, kept the teleology coming. I guess it’s pretty plausible to say that because marsupial young are at risk of predation and infection, mammals needed to develop a placenta so they could be born well-developed. However, to be strictly ateleological one ought to say that those mammals that happened to develop a specialised uterus equipped for gas and nutrient exchange and massive growth capacity, and a modified lower genital tract, muscular and skeletal structure to allow live birth of large offspring, together of course with greatly enlarged lactation gear and radically altered habits of nurture; at the same … Continue reading
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
7 Comments
Biologos – infinitesimal change or stasis?
It seems to be rather quiet over at BioLogos recently. Two things to note, though, about themes that particularly interest me. On an apparently uncontroversial thread, the failure of those influential at BioLogos to engage with the questions raised by many of us, about its ongoing fudging of the issue of God’s involvement in evolution, was noted.
Posted in Creation, Politics and sociology, Science
9 Comments
The New Gnu Song
I’ve been messing around in the studio and this sort of came out as a comment on certain well known religious cultists. For the ignorant, Flanders and Swann were noted purveyors of comic songs in the fifties and sixties. The piano part was reconstructed on my faithful midi Steinway and the applause lifted from the original recording. If you like it link to it and tell your friends!
Posted in Music, Science, Theology
3 Comments
David Attenborough the vitalist
David Attenborough is by far the greatest populariser of evolution this side of the Atlantic – far more so than the Gnu posterboy Richard Dawkins – and I suppose, because of the sheer quality of BBC documentaries, perhaps he is on the western side as well. But what kind of evolution does he actually believe? It’s pretty clear from interviews and pronouncements on the subject itself that he’s a fan of Darwin, and doesn’t depart in any important respect from classical Neodarwinism. But the stuff he prepares for popular consumption – that by which he has become a “public institution” – paradoxically preaches a quite different doctrine. And that actually … Continue reading
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
Leave a comment
Science and probabilities
At the heart of the concept of Intelligent Design, though surprisingly often obscured in the discussion, is the issue of probabilities. William Dembski’s work, for example, seeks to show that the probabilities of, say, self replicating molecules arising by known natural processes are too low to be practically feasible. In contrast, he argues, a process that is intelligently planned is, by its nature, improbable (like the contents of this post), and so is a good candidate explanation for complex, organised, entities. I don’t think that would be controversial if it didn’t lead to theological conclusions.
Posted in Politics and sociology, Science, Uncategorized
Leave a comment