
falsifiability


How Naturalism Rots Science from the Head Down

Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: A Response to Critics
A Trigger Warning for Criticisms of Darwinism?
The Devil May Not Be in the Details — But the Truth Is
Foundational Question: Is Intelligent Design Science?

From the Steadily Shrinking Catalogue of "Functionless," "Vestigial" Organs: Now, the Tailbone

Princeton Historian: Falsifiability Not a Requirement of Science

Don’t Bash it ‘Til You’ve Tried It: A response to Krauthammer and Kriegel

Will Robert Pennock Become the Next Michael Ruse?
If you’ll give me the Mic, I won’t Rob much of your time while Penning this short Ruse. In the Dover trial, Robert Pennock is the Plaintiffs’ expert on the philosophy of science, and Pennock pushed hard for a definition of science which is essentially “methodological naturalism.” This is eerily similar to the 1982 case, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F.Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark) over the teaching of young earth creationism, where Darwinist Philosopher of Science Michael Ruse testified that science was defined as follows: Ruse’s definition incorporates the precise methodological naturalism advocated by Pennock in Ruse’s requirements (1) and (2). Ruse’s definition was also subsequently accepted by Judge Overton and etched into Eastern Arkansas law. But we Read More ›