Heads I Win, Tails You Lose: Intelligent Design vs. Quantum Computation

I think it was Van Till who called creationist views just another variation on the old trick ‘heads I win, tails you lose’. If the universe has characteristics that can lead to life and complexity coming about through natural processes, this is taken as evidence that the universe is designed and fine-tuned by a creator. If the universe does not have such characteristics then life is improbable and thus must have been supernaturally created. Heads I win, tails you lose.Pointing… Read more

The New Perspective on Paul

In the latest issue of Christianity Today, Simon Gathercole offers a somewhat appreciative but also critical evaluation of the new perspective on Paul. For me, the new perspective’s major conclusions (such as that “the works of the Law” in Paul’s writings were not good works in general but symbols of the separateness of the Jews as God’s chosen people over against the Gentiles) seem completely sound conclusions that are right on target. This is not merely because Paul affirms judgment… Read more

Michael Behe on The Colbert Report

Those who interested in intelligent design will want to see Michael Behe’s appearance on The Colbert Report… Read more

Intelligent Design and its Critics

Metanexus has made available a wide selection of articles on intelligent design representing key supporters and critics’ views. Those unfamiliar with this web site will find much more on it that is interesting and useful. Read more

The Heart Of The Matter: What Does God Do?

I’ve been reading several books on evolution, intelligent design, and related subjects, as I seek to decide on representative readings to assign for my religion and science course this Fall. It seems to me that the differences between many viewpoints centers around the question of what God does.Naturalistic explanations of various things in the world around us have always challenged religious beliefs. The monotheistic God of the Abrahamic traditions continues to have adherents precisely because of the flexibility and all-encompassing… Read more

What Paul Meant

The Busybody blog asks in today’s post how Paul or Isaiah would feel about our reinterpretations and/or contextualizations of their writings. If it is possible to speak of authorial post-mortem indignation, then presumably it is also possible (presumably more so) to speak of authorial intent! :-) Here are my few thoughts on the subject:When we ask what Paul and Isaiah would make of our reinterpretations and contextualizations of their writings, I suspect that the answer depends on how aware they… Read more

Philosophy of Teaching

I am currently working on a statement of my teaching philosophy, and decided (as with most other things I do) to share it on my blog, in the hope both that I may receive helpful feedback, as well as in the hope that it may be helpful and useful to others. As I worked on writing it, I found that I could not simply repeat all of the statements I had made in the past, even though much has remained… Read more

Friendly Atheist’s Soul Bought By Friendly Christian On eBay

I just finished reading the book I Sold My Soul on eBay: Viewing Faith through an Atheist’s Eyes. It is about an atheist who said he would attend church as specified by the highest bidder on eBay. He provides insights on what goes on in churches from the perspective of an atheist raised in a Jain family, and thus with no Christian background to make many Christians’ various strange customs seem more familiar. This is definitely recommended reading for both… Read more

Down With Secular Mathematics!

On my old blog I made a tongue-in-cheek reference to the need for a special “Biblical mathematics” if one wishes to attempt (even though it is futile) to be a “Biblical literalist” – defining pi as 3, allowing 13 to equal 14, and so on. Apparently I am not the only person to have this sort of idea – there is a nice parody of “creation science” in the mathematical realm in the Bollingbrook Babbler. Read more

The Three Laws of Robotics

I’m actually writing something on religion and science fiction, and found myself pondering Asimov’s famous Three Laws of Robotics. On the one hand, such laws seem like a necessity. On the other hand, if we manage to create sentient, self-aware artificial persons, then would they not have rights? Could we in essence impose our will on them in this way, or would their right to the same freedoms other persons have lead to the Three Laws being overturned by some… Read more

Follow Us!