epistemology, science, kinds of knowledge, methodology
Newton’s theory of gravity was superseded in the 20th century. Orthodox Popperians should therefore throw it on the dustbin of history. But Newton’s theory is not rejected because his laws are still valid within a limited range that is very useful. Similarly, we still speak of the sun rising and setting even though absolute geo-staticism has been […]
Reductionism goes beyond naturalism to say that biology is reducible to chemistry which is reducible to physics. The acid of reductionism turns fixed kinds into temporary kinds and differences in kind into differences in degree. The paradigmatic example of differences in kind is the periodic table of elements. This structure is fixed and unchangeable. But
The idea that science begins with hypotheses instead of data arose in the 19th century, first in the work of William Whewell, and was very influential on Charles Darwin. It is scientific orthodoxy today but is a flawed methodology. Here are three flaws: Positive bias: It’s virtually impossible to demonstrate a negative empirical conclusion because
Recall that mathematical induction has two requirements: a base case and an inductive step. Show that a statement is true for x=1 and show that if it is true for x=n, then it is true for x=n+1. The induction follows as a falling series of dominoes. Evolutionists try to do something similar. They show that evolution is true in
Scientism asserts the superiority of natural science over all other sciences, disciplines, or teachings. Mikael Stenmark proposed the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym for scientism. That’s a good suggestion because scientism is essentially a boundary-breaker. Scientism says that science is superior wherever it goes and it goes anywhere it wants. (That’s analogous to the word
Radical Orthodoxy is a movement (or ‘disposition’) among some theologians which attempts to articulate Christian orthodoxy in the context of post-modernist critiques of modernism, post-liberal critiques of liberalism, and post-secular critiques of secularism. They’re not creationists but they do make some similar points about creation, fall, and redemption contrary to naturalism. According to its best-known exponent, John Milbank, theology
Evolutionists are extreme “lumpers” as far as classification goes: there is only one kind of life (or stuff) and all differences are a matter of degree. The problem for science is that differences of kind cannot be demonstrated unless one first accepts some criteria for differentiating them, which evolutionists won’t do because it would lead to the
Evolution Evolution in Stanford Encyclopedia National Center for Science Education Society for the Study of Evolution Talk.Origins Archive Understanding Evolution Intelligent Design Access Research Network Discovery Institute Intelligent Design Network Origins Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity Progressive Creation God and Science Reasons to Believe Special Creation Answers in Genesis Creation on the Web Creation
Ian Johnston has an interesting but flawed article on The Short Proof of Evolution, which prompted me to write A Short Critique of “The Short Proof of Evolution”. It also got me thinking about short arguments for creation. When combined together, the following arguments constitute a kind of proof of creation. Matter and Life Matter
Ian Johnston wrote an article called The Short Proof of Evolution. It has the merit of arguing for a general paradigm of evolution rather than a particular theory of evolution. It is accessible to a wide audience. And it is short. However, it falls far short of a proof. Here’s a short article why. Johnston’s
A short critique of “The Short Proof of Evolution” Read More »
