- Around_the_Web (2,375)
- Book_Review (100)
- Disciplines in Dialogue (13)
- Essay (1,174)
- Essentials (19)
- Featured (1)
- Indic Religions (7)
- Intelligent Design and Its Critics (84)
- Metanexus_Institute (1)
- Network (238)
- Profile (817)
- Project (6)
- The New Sciences of Religion (12)
- Transhumanism and Its Critics (20)
- Video (38)
- Visual-Explorations (45)
- Anthropocene
- Author
- BIG History
- BIG Problems
- BIG Questions
- Big Transitions
- Biodiversity
- Brain & Consciousness
- Climate Events
- Complexity & Emergence
- Conference 2007
- Conference 2008
- Conference 2009
- Cosmology
- Creativity
- Culture
- Disease
- Earth
- Economics
- Education
- Elements
- Emeritus Board Member
- Energy
- Environment
- Europe
- Food
- General Anthropos
- General Bios
- General Cosmos
- General Sophia
- Genetics
- God-Universe
- Governance
- Hierarchies
- Humans
- Information
- Intelligent Design and Its Critics
- Life
- Limits of Science
- Markets
- Mathematics
- Morality & Ethics
- North America
- Organizations
- Polydoxy
- Population
- Quantum Mechanics
- Resources
- Social Change
- Stages
- Stars
- Survival & Reproduction
- Technoscience
- The Far Future
- Transformation
- Tribalism & Religion
- Unity of Knowledge
- Universe
- Values & Virtues
- War & Peace
Refuted Yet Again! — A Brief reply to Matt Young
By William Dembski on February 5, 2002Read moreThe mathematician George Polya used to quip that if you can’t solve a problem, find an easier problem and solve it. Matt Young seems to have taken Polya’s advice to heart. Young has taken Shannon’s tried-and-true theory of information and shoehorned my notion of specified complexity into it. The shoe no longer fits, and so there must be something wrong
0How to Evolve Specified Complexity by Natural Means
By Matt Young on January 24, 2002Read moreMany years ago, I read this advice to a young physicist desperate to get his or her work cited as frequently as possible: Publish a paper that makes a subtle misuse of the second law of thermodynamics. Then everyone will rush to correct you and in the process cite your paper. The mathematician William Dembski has taken this advice to
The Intelligent Design Bridge: A Fault Analysis
By Clay Naff on January 10, 2002Read more“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane…” — Richard Dawkins “We’re leaving the fortress and heading behind the lines to blow up the other side’s headquarters, its ammunition store.” — Philip E. Johnson In the science-religion discourse of recent
Creation: From Nothing Until Now, Part 6
By Willlem Drees on January 4, 2002Read moreMetanexus: Views 2002.01.04 2428 words Technology may first be understood as ‘imitating nature’, doing thingswhich nature does as well. At some point, we move on to ‘improving nature’,doing some things better than they would be without us, claims Dutchtheologian Willem Drees. He then adds, ‘Better’ is, of course, anevaluation – and thus invites the question what the standard is by
Creation: From Nothing Until Now, Part 5
By Willlem Drees on January 3, 2002Read moreMetanexus: Views 2002.01.03 2679 words If we are the products of evolution, can we take positive initiatives, makethe right choices? Or are our choices fixed since days of old, and isfreedom nothing but an illusion? Libraries could be filled with books on’free will’. Here I want to indicate briefly why I hold that a meaningfulnotion of freedom might perhaps be