Nowości

Przyczynowość nałożona na strukturę czasoprzestrzeni

Czasu doświadczamy inaczej niż przestrzeni. W przestrzeni możemy się zatrzymać i wrócić do miejsca zajmowanego wcześniej. Czas jednak uparcie zmierza naprzód. To, co się zdarzyło "przedtem", wpływa na to, co się wydarza "potem". Nigdy odwrotnie. Tę własność Wszechświata, przyczynowość, Biblia tak właśnie od czasów starożytnych opisuje, w przeciwieństwie do wówczas, w starożytności, dominujących na Bliskim Wschodzie sposobów myślenia o czasie.

Gladiator i żaba — skamieniałości, które ożyły. Odnaleziono następne gatunki uważane za wymarłe

 

2006

 

Jason Rosenhouse, "Why is it Unconstitutional to Teach Intelligent Design?" (2006)

"Talk Reason" published: Jan 02, 2006; http://www.talkreason.org./articles/Unconstitutional.cfm --- Anstract --- Professor Rosenhouse surveys the outcome of the Kitzmiller vs. DASD case. While the entire decision by Judge Jones is exciting reading, this survey may be handy for those readers who would like to have rather a more succinct (but still fairly complete) report on the main points of the decision. Originally posted on CSICOP site (http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/dover.html).

Phyllis Schlafly, "False judge makes mockery of case for 'intelligent design'" (2006)

Townhall.com Jan 2, 2006; http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/phyllisschlafly/2006/01/02/180785.html

Randall Walton, "Headline" (2006)

"The Testimony of Truth" January 2006, No. 506, pp. 2-3; http://www.people-livinggod.org/current.htm#HEADLINE

Bradley Monton, "Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision" (2006) pdf

"PhilSci Archive" http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002583/; http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002583/ --- Abstract --- In the case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Judge Jones ruled that a pro-intelligent design disclaimer cannot be read to public school students. In his decision, he gave demarcation criteria for what counts as science, ruling that intelligent design fails these criteria. I argue that these criteria are flawed, with most of my focus on the criterion of methodological naturalism. The way to refute intelligent design is not by declaring it unscientific, but by showing that the empirical evidence for design is not there.

Kirk Johnson, "Evolution Measure Splits State Legislators in Utah" (2006)

"The New York Times" February 5, 2006; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/national/05evolution.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Andrew Cline, "Stretching the Constitution to keep out intelligent design" (2006)

"The Baltimore Sun" January 2, 2006; http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.design02jan02,1,1400659.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

Rudy Takala, "Making Darwin Right" (2006)

"Opinion Editorials" January 01, 2006; http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/rtakala_20060101.html

Judith Shulevitz, "When Cosmologies Collide" (2006)

"The New York Times" January 22, 2006; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/books/review/22shule.html?ex=1139288400&en=0cccda2960269477&ei=5070

Judith Davidoff, "Bill bans creationism as science" (2006)

"The Capital Times" Published: February 7, 2006; http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=71780&ntpid=4

Jodi Rudoren, "Ohio Expected to Rein In Class Linked to Intelligent Design" (2006)

"The New York Times" February 14, 2006; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/education/14evolution.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Jodi Rudoren, "Ohio Board Undoes Stand on Evolution" (2006)

"The New York Times" February 15, 2006; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/national/15cnd-evolution.html?hp&ex=1140066000&en=d94cfc6b3c242530&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Holley Horrell, "Expert traces history of evolution debates" (2006)

"The Chronicle" Online, The Independent Daily at Duke University, January 27, 2006; http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/01/27/43da0b30d259f

Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, "The Designs of Science" (2006)

"First Things" January 2006, 159, s. 34-38; http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0601/articles/schonborn.html

Robert Sprackland, "Darwin's theory is a fact" (2006)

"Seattle Post-Intelligencer" Thursday, January 19, 2006; http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/256146_hubrisid19.html

Granville Sewell, "Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure" (2005)

"The American Spectator" Published 12/28/2005 12:05:33 AM; http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9128

Granville Sewell, "A Second Look at the Second Law" () pdf

http://www.math.tamu.edu/~sewell/odes_pdes/article.pdf

Mark Perakh, "Sewell's thermodynamic failure" (2006)

"Talk Reason" published: Jan 03, 2006; http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Sewell.cfm --- Abstract --- Young earth creationists used to fallaciously refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as an allegedly insurmountable obstacle to evolution. Since straightforward young earth creationism gradually retreated to such fringe outlets as Answers in Genesis, the Institute of Creation Research, and Hovind's entertainment shops (being replaced by intelligent design movement as the main anti-evolution force), reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics has rarely been heard as an anti-evolution argument. However, this pseudo-scientific argument has not been completely abandoned by anti-evolution forces, both of YEC and ID varieties. From time to time it recrudesces in the writing of this or that advocate of creationism. One example of such a misuse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a recent article by professor of mathematics Granville Sewell, titled Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure. In this post Mark Perakh, drawing on his expertise in thermodynamics, discusses Sewell's article, and demonstrates Sewell's misinterpretation of certain thermodynamic concepts which led Sewall to unsubstantiated conclusions, as in fact the 2nd law of thermodynamics in no way prohibits evolution.

There are currently no criteria on which to search. Please add them using the 'criteria' tab.