Topics I am considering for 2017 along with recommended reading.
Note there is nothing in the category of Christian apologetics or how atheism is irrational, but that could change. 🙂
What are we talking about when we talk about causation?
The Causation Debate in Modern Philosophy
: Cell Membranes
Are they a barrier to evolution?
: Compositional Evolution
Does Darwinian evolution need help?
: Design Arguments
Discuss design arguments.
An Introduction to Design Arguments
Does anyone really understand entropy?
: Evidence and Evolution
What counts as evidence for evolution and why?
: Evolutionary Informatics
Discuss the book.
Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics
: The Mechanical Mind
Can mind be reduced to mechanism?
: Socrates’ Children
Discuss Philosophers and Philosophy. I think this series was supposed to come out over two years ago and it keeps getting delayed. I may give up on it.
: Theistic Evolution
Discuss theistic evolution.
Discuss the arguments in Douglas Axe’s book.
In Search of Cell History” looks to be an interesting book, I might even get it myself.
According to Amazon, In Search of Cell History was “frequently bought along with” Peter Hoffman’s Life’s Ratchet , which is also a fantastic read.
Yes, let’s discuss the arguments in Douglas Axe’s book:
On second thoughts, let’s not.
Sober’s Evidence and Evolution is quite excellent.
This thread is actually a good illustration of the creationist SOP. Mix in utter nonsense with reality and hope your nonsense files under the radar.
Mung has to get his daily attention whore quota some way.
Between meaningful discussions of evidence, and nonsense.
Can’t have the former without the latter undermining it.
I don’t know that book, but what I’ve read by sober has been good.
Mung, from the OP:
I’ve been following Wayne Rossiter from his own blog to Uncommon Descent and BioLogos. The ruffling of feathers between him and Prof. Swamidass and then with the usual suspects at UD was quite amusing.
I recommend some Terry Pratchett as well.
I’m reading Secondhand Souls
I would like to see a discussion on the evolution of early life forms and how it was supposed to work without design.
We spot them the first complete simple cell. Naturally.
Then we can watch with cartoonish grins on our face as they shave, clip, but mostly just mangle the logical pieces of the puzzle to make them fit.
There’s a whole science dedicated to the issues. It’s called abiogenesis. There are tons of research articles readily available from the professional scientific literature if you’re interested in more than just the usual trolling.
Compostional evolution. YES heavens above Darwin needs help.
Evidence and evolution. Excellent thing to discuss. If evolutionism is not true it couldn’t possibly have biological scientific evidence to prove/substain/servive it.
Therefore any evidence presented should be shown as not biological or scientific.
RATHER its geological, anatomical, genetic, geobiography, lines of reasoning that has been dumbly invoked as evidence since Chuck was around.
And only a true believer would think that research has a chance of demonstrating anything. Nature can make stones and yet cannot make stonehenges. And forget about the fact stones don’t reproduce as biological reproduction is out of the reach of stochastic processes.
That was almost but not quite completely unlike intelligible speech.
So atheism is irrational, yet the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree is not?
First two non-fiction books I want to read next year are
Brandt, A Theory of the Good and the Right; and
Elster & Roemer (eds.), Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being: Studies in Rationality and Social Change
In fiction, more Thackeray and Trollope.
How about something on the Nazi UFO connection?
Intelligent design creationists using “true believer” as an insult. It’s almost like they know how foolish their position is. It would be insulting (and too complimentary) to suggest that is the case, though.
Losers use the insult “Intelligent Design Creationists” almost as if they know how lame their position is.
Sorry, I signed a non-disclosure agreement.
Merry Christmas Sal, and Happy New Year.
Good to see you finally distinguishing your terms. Would not want to confuse the intelligent design non-creationists with the intelligent design creationists.
Needy Mung is on my ignore list.