The Hump of the Camel

It’s a fundamental fact of classical Christian (and before that, Jewish) theology that Yahweh is the Lord of human history. It is arguably that perspective that gave the west its concept of time as a linear trajectory, rather than as the endless series of cycles in other cultural traditions. Let me demonstrate with a few biblical examples. Continue reading →

I watched an interesting documentary on the Antikythera mechanism  yesterday. You’ll probably be aware of its existence as a corroded, but obviously complex, artifact retrieved from an ancient shipwreck a century ago. Within my own memory, it was an obscure object that raised the mystery of whether ancient Greeks could really have produced such a sophisticated geared mechanism, or whether it was recent, or alien. Now, through modern technology and some really hard work, its function is now known in some detail, and its inscriptions deciphered. Continue reading →

There is a kind of low-level scientism operating in the medical profession which, given the humanitarian nature of the pursuit, may seem surprising. But the reason is simple – from the time they start university, medical students are intensively engaged in scientific education and long working hours, and other interests tend to go by the board. Continue reading →

Blogger The OFloinn has started (and not yet completed) a mythbusting and brilliantly written series on the historical transition from Ptolomeic astronomy. Part one of The Great Ptolomeic Smackdown is here, and Part two here. If you like it you can follow his links to subsequent parts as he posts them.

Particularly valuable is the unusually thorough debunking of the scientistic fiction that the unenlightened, stupid (and religious) Old Days gave way to the truth and light of Science. Instead, the consistent mixture of astonishing insight and human shortcomings in every age is made clear. This has obvious lessons for the current debates about evolutionary thought and its complex relationship to science. And it’s hugely entertaining, too.

If you look at the way the Wikipedia article on “Noncoding DNA” has settled after much to-ing and fro-ing after the ENCODE papers were published, you’ll see that the final “consensus” is that ENCODE’s figure of 80%+ function for DNA means little, since mere transcription is a poor indicator of function. Naughty ENCODE was careless in playing into the Creationists’ hands.

Uncommon Descent has just pointed to a paper by Mattick and Dinger who clearly belong to that increasing “lunatic fringe” of people with excellent credentials who cast doubt on that wisdom. Continue reading →