Looking Ahead to 2017

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. 🙂

Thoughts?

Merry Christmas!

: Causation

What are we talking about when we talk about causation?

The Causation Debate in Modern Philosophy

: Cell Membranes

Are they a barrier to evolution?

In Search of Cell History

: Compositional Evolution

Does Darwinian evolution need help?

Compositional Evolution

: Design Arguments

Discuss design arguments.

An Introduction to Design Arguments

: Entropy

Does anyone really understand entropy?

Entropy

: Evidence and Evolution

What counts as evidence for evolution and why?

Evidence and Evolution

: Evolutionary Informatics

Discuss the book.

Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics

: The Mechanical Mind

Can mind be reduced to mechanism?

The Restless Clock

: 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.

Socrates’ Children

: Theistic Evolution

Discuss theistic evolution.

Shadow of Oz

: Undeniable

Discuss the arguments in Douglas Axe’s book.

Undeniable

26 thoughts on “Looking Ahead to 2017

  1. 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.

  2. Yes, let’s discuss the arguments in Douglas Axe’s book:
    .

    “Having now given you my reasoning, I won’t hesitate to name God as the intelligent designer from this point forward.”

    On second thoughts, let’s not.

  3. Kantian Naturalist: 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.

  4. OMagain: 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.

  5. OMagain: 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.

    It’s balanced.

    Between meaningful discussions of evidence, and nonsense.

    Can’t have the former without the latter undermining it.

    Glen Davidson

  6. Patrick: Terry Pratchett

    Indeed:

    “Most species do their own evolving, making it up as they go along, which is the way Nature intended. And this is all very natural and organic and in tune with mysterious cycles of the cosmos, which believes that there’s nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fiber and, in some cases, backbone.”

    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/419101-most-species-do-their-own-evolving-making-it-up-as

  7. 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.

  8. Steve:
    I would like to see a discussion on the evolution of early life forms and how it was supposed to work without design.

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. Adapa: 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.

    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.

  11. Robert Byers:
    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.

    That was almost but not quite completely unlike intelligible speech.

  12. 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?

  13. 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.

  14. Frankie: And only a true believer would think that research has a chance of demonstrating anything.
    . . . .

    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.

  15. Patrick: 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.

  16. Patrick: Intelligent design creationists…

    Good to see you finally distinguishing your terms. Would not want to confuse the intelligent design non-creationists with the intelligent design creationists.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.