I put in a couple of comments on a thread on BioLogos that began by tut-tutting Intelligent Design’s “anti scientific” stance. Coincidentally it overlaps with the theme of my last post on ID, whose aim (by provocatively portraying ID as a foundational science rather than the more usual accusation that it is a pseudo-science) was to draw attention to the historical centrality of teleology to science, and the scientific cost of its loss in the last last two centuries. Eddie Robinson continues, currently, to battle away to good effect on that thread. Continue reading
Search
-
Recent Posts
- Does matter matter? 06/05/2026
- We meet the Word in the word, not in the world 02/05/2026
- The triumph of the cross 29/04/2026
- 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
Recent Comments
- Jon Garvey on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
- Jon Garvey on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
- Jon Garvey on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
- Robert Byers on How Darwinian evolution became plausible (for a time)
- Hanan on We meet the Word in the word, not in the world
Post Archive