The Origin of Origin Science and Operation Science
Young Earth Creationists and ID proponents will often complain that theories such as The Big Bang and Evolution do not qualify as rigorous science because they pertain to non-repeatable events that happened in the distant past. They consider such theories as belonging to a poor cousin of science they call Origin Science (or Historical Science). And they draw a distinction between this category and what they call Operation Science. In this article I would like to explain why this distinction is unnecessary and deceptive. Singular events in the past can be studied through science with the same integrity and rigor as recurring events and phenemona. Continue reading
One of the barriers that seem to keep Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists from understanding the theory of evolution has to do with a complaint about how the process of random mutation and natural selection could produce anything new.
You can often hear the objection voiced in a few different ways, but it is used as justification that a process that does not involve help from an intelligent agent could not possibly create new information in the DNA of an organism. I propose in this article a demonstration for how that is possible. Continue reading
In a previous article, I described how 101 trained monkeys could come up with a line from a Shakespeare play. And in a subsequent article, I simulated the process with a small computer program. In this article, I would like to explain why this process is important to the theory of evolution. Continue reading
In the Part 1 of this series, I wrote that the two most important philosophical innovations that led to the incredible success of science is that science will seek to create only naturalistic explanations about natural phenomena. And science will determine the truth of a scientific explanation by appealing directly and only to nature itself. In other words we will ask nature to explain nature and we will use nature as the final authority about the truth of that explanation. So how do we go about asking nature about nature? And how do we go about asking nature about truth?
In part 1 of this series of three articles I demonstrated the problem of trying to prove something logically using either of two logical fallacies called False Dichotomy, and Appeal To Ignorance. I highly recommend reading part 1 if you are unfamiliar with these logical fallacies. In this part 2, I would like to demonstrate why the relationship between the hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity, put forth by Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe is based on the logical fallacy of False Dichotomy.
If you read on, you might find out why the unicorn still owes me $20. Continue reading
You are a thief! I can prove that you, the reader, stole $20 from me. Last night, while my wife was out of town, I left a $20 bill on the kitchen table. When I woke up this morning, there was no $20 bill on the table. Since I didn’t take the bill, you must have stolen it. I am sure you will deny the theft, but I insist that I had nothing to do with removing that bill from the table.
Have I proven that you stole the bill? If you think my logic is ok, then please forward $20 to my address in small unmarked bills. If not, then you can save yourself $20 by reading on. Continue reading
In my introductory post to this series, I wrote that the the secret to the astonishing success of science is the invention of a new epistemology ( a new way of knowing). This brilliant intellectual invention was responsible for an explosion in our understanding of the universe over the last 400 years when compared to the previous hundred thousand years of the human struggle for understanding.
In this post I would like to explain the first two revolutionary philosophical innovations that broke the whole deal wide open. Continue reading