Tag Archives: Philosophy

Settled science?

See:

http://online.worldmag.com/2011/09/26/settled-science/

Article reads: “The science is settled,” the Al Gores of the world like to say, and it makes a nice sound bite. Except that last weekend’s bombshell from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) should blow all such smug assurances out of the water. At the world’s largest particle accelerator, located near Geneva, technicians have detected a sub-atomic particle (a neutrino) that travels faster than light—300,006 km per second, as opposed to 299,792 km per second. How can this be? Albert Einstein postulated that nothing can travel faster than light; light speed is the peg that his theory of special relativity hangs on.

Kauffman writes on “our habit of control”

See:

Click Here

Article reads: We in the First World, largely the West, live with a Newtonian illusion of “control” and “optimization.” It is time to examine our habit of control for, while it can work at times, this habit dangerously mistakes the reality of the world we live in and co-create.

Evolution defies nature

See:

Click Here

Opinion reads: The theory of evolution states all life began as a single-celled organism that evolved over time to form the complex world we see today. The statistical probability of that single-celled organism spontaneously generating is about 3 trillion to one.

Of Hilter and Darwin

See:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/why_darwinism_should_keep_to_i051001.html

Article reads: As Arnhart rightly points out, the German-reading Hitler probably did not read the original works of the English-writing Charles Darwin. Hitler no doubt learned Darwinian theory through the mediating influences of fellow German-speakers like Ernst Haeckel. But most people who know about Darwinian theory first become acquainted with it through writers or teachers other than Charles Darwin.

Landon standing strong against big science

See:

http://darwiniana.com/2011/09/13/standing-up-to-big-science-idiocy/

Landon writes: Keep in mind that scientists are adept at promoting pseudo-science, and making it the public standard. As with Darwinism. Don’t be intimidated.

Evolution anomalies

See:

http://www.ufodigest.com/article/evolution-anomalies

Article reads: The theory by scientists that man evolved from the ape again has many discrepancies in its findings and data; which raises a number of questions to the truth of those claims.   As we have learnt on occasions there have been brave people who will speak out against the set ridged ways of scientific thinking.

The brain on atheism

See:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-is-your-brain-on-atheism/

Opinion reads: Reducing man’s ideas to his biology, in fact, destroys the foundation of all knowledge. If our ideas are determined by our genes, then how can we know if anything we believe is true? Such refutations were long ago leveled against the muddled thinking of materialists, but the authors, confused by the crude empiricist errors of modern scientism, apparently are unaware of the historic debate. Ignorance of the history of ideas is a woefully common trait among atheists.

Telic Thoughts shares open letter, and looks at natural selection

See:

Click Here

Letter asks questions: Is natural selection a prescriptive or descriptive term? Is natural selection a mechanism? Is natural selection a cause or a force? Is natural selection a process or an outcome?

Implications of ID

See:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/broader-implications-of-id/

Article reads: In the popular media, ID is often portrayed as Creationism in new clothes.  And indeed, even among ID proponents, the creation implications tend to be predominantly emphasized.  Yet the theory underpinning Intelligent Design has implications beyond the realm of biological history, perhaps it is a much broader theory than most realize at first.  In fact, it may even describe a comprehensive worldview.  The primary reason that ID has such an impact is because materialism underlies many areas of modern thought, and ID is an alternative hypothesis to materialism.

Boundaries of science

See:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275417/boundaries-science-jim-manzi

Article reads: Neither the Left nor the Right is guiltless here. The Left attempts to stretch science to justify what are really non-scientific viewpoints, but conservatives often react by attacking the underlying science, rather than making the more complicated — but more accurate — point that the actual scientific findings published in peer-reviewed journals (i.e., “the science”) don’t really imply the political assertion.