A few weeks ago, I finished an incredibly long-take home final for one of my favorite classes: the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics with Professor Ned Hall (I highly recommend it, even for people who are terrible at physics like me). Even though the course is now complete, I still have quantum mechanics in my mind
(More)…
I recently read a popular science book called Life on a Young Planet by Harvard’s own Andy Knoll. The majority of the book was a decently interesting synopsis of current thought on paleobiology. But because every popular science book must have sappy epilogue (or a sappy prologue, or both), Knoll took a few pages at
(More)…
Last week, John Joseph Porter opined on why combining conversion to Christianity with criticism of evolution is bad. I’d like to address on his fourth point. One of the things that I’ve noted after the distribution of The Origin of Species on campus is that most people at Harvard think anyone who questions evolution is
(More)…
Yesterday, free copies of a new edition of Darwin’s groundbreaking On the Origin of Species were distributed at the entrances to Harvard Yard on Massachusetts Avenue. I was pleasantly surprised to receive the book (even though the text is available online), because it may be one of the most influential works of all time. But
(More)…
To what extent should science inform our understanding of scripture? Always and not at all, if we are to believe the pronouncements of most contemporary Evangelical thinkers. I present as a starting point the following series of short excerpts from a systematic theology by John Feinberg, Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical
(More)…
Atheism’s just simpler, isn’t it? No spirits, no souls, no angels, no miracles, no God: just Dawkins’ “blind physical forces” operating the same way on everything, always and everywhere. God is a redundancy, a violation of Occam’s Razor, a hypothesis of which we (like Laplace) have no need. Right? Modern science has regularized our view
(More)…
“[R]ejection of the supernatural should not be a part of scientific methodology…. [S]cientists should be free to pursue hypotheses as they see fit, without being constrained by a particular philosophical account of what science is…. If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that the aim of science is not generating true
(More)…
