Tag Archives: Science

Richard Dawkins’ Anti-Scientific Hypocrisy

In honor of Richard Dawkins’ refusal to debate William Lane Craig tomorrow, I’m re-posting a piece I wrote for the Newport News Daily Press early in 2007, highlighting his hypocritical willingness to ignore science when it suits his purpose. This article was also published at BreakPoint. Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion has been a …

October 24, 2011 – 3:29 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in New Atheism, Origins and Science | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments (6)

“Moon Not Made of Cheese, Physicist Explains”

Not as trivial as you might think it is: “Don’t think that you fully understand the properties of lunar green cheese…. The answer is that it’s absurd to think the moon is made of green cheese. “And the formalization of that absurdity is that we are allowed to use other things we know about the …

October 21, 2011 – 6:00 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Just For Fun, Origins and Science | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

The Primitive Belief in Satan and Demons

This entry is part 3 of 4 in the series Spiritual Battle

I’ve been talking about Satan, demons and other primitive, pre-scientific sorts of things here. The topic has reminded me how odd it is that labeling ancient ideas that way—”primitive,” “outdated,” and the like—tilts us toward counting them as wrong or worthless. Usually that has to do with their having preceded the Dawn of Science, which …

October 20, 2011 – 12:56 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science, Thinking Christianly, Worldviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments (99)

Is It Rational To Believe In Spiritual Battle? (Part 1)

This entry is part 1 of 4 in the series Spiritual Battle

It’s been just over a year since I began working with BreakPoint/The Colson Center for Christian Worldview. (I’m still on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ, soon to be named Cru, and this is my current assignment.) The year has been remarkably intense. We’ve made significant progress toward high-impact ministry goals, yet meanwhile our …

October 15, 2011 – 8:31 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments (4)

“What Is Pseudoscience?: Scientific American”

So far so good from Michael Shermer, writing at Scientific American, as he quotes Michael D. Gordin in an excellent, pithy analysis: “individual scientists (as distinct from the monolithic ‘scientific community’) designate a doctrine a ‘pseudoscience’ only when they perceive themselves to be threatened—not necessarily by the new ideas themselves, but by what those ideas …

September 18, 2011 – 6:00 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (13)

Earth, Air, Fire, Water—and God

Several years ago my wife and I were hiking in the Anaheim Hills when we heard a drumbeat ahead of us. Our first thought was of a Boy Scout troop, but it turned out instead to be a pagan circle chanting their praises to earth, air, fire, and water. I can’t help thinking about that …

August 27, 2011 – 9:00 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in New Atheism, Religions, The Faith | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments (25)

Regularism: A Better Alternative to Methodological Naturalism

This entry is part 5 of 6 in the series Science Doesn't Need MN

(Update 3/29: Please regard this series as a first draft with important revisions yet to come.) I have just completed an argument to the effect that “Methodological Naturalism” (MN) is a false and flawed requirement for the practice of natural science. MN’s assumptions are theological rather than scientific, as witnessed by the fact that there is …

March 25, 2011 – 2:16 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , | Comments (118)

Why Scientists Should Reject Methodological Naturalism

This entry is part 4 of 6 in the series Science Doesn't Need MN

(Update 3/29: Please regard this series as a first draft with important revisions yet to come.) Review In three prior posts in this series I shown that Methodological Naturalism (MN) relies on assumptions that are: Theological rather than scientific Disputable rather than firmly established Unnecessary rather than required for science In particular I have shown that …

March 25, 2011 – 1:26 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

Why Science Doesn’t Need Methodological Naturalism (2)

This entry is part 3 of 6 in the series Science Doesn't Need MN

(Update 3/29: Please regard this series as a first draft with important revisions yet to come.) Two days ago I wrote about the theology implicit in one justification of Methodological Naturalism’s (MN’s) being a requirement for science. I was responding then to the second of the three Justifications for MN I had listed in the first …

March 24, 2011 – 11:04 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (17)

Science Doesn’t Need Methodological Naturalism

This entry is part 1 of 6 in the series Science Doesn't Need MN

(Update 3/29: Please regard this series as a first draft with important revisions yet to come.) It’s virtually a given that science cannot operate apart from methodological naturalism. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education provides a definition for the term as she expresses some of the devotion that is felt for it: …

March 21, 2011 – 4:15 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , , | Comments (7)