Author: Paul Nelson
Naturalism Under the Microscope
Methodological naturalism — the philosophical doctrine that scientific explanations must refer only to natural causes — is the central and most controversial concept in all discussions of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design.
Listening to Butterflies
The metamorphosis of butterflies represents “the magic of reality,” in Richard Dawkins’s wonderful phrase, where actual, not made-up or fictional, biology is so astonishing that its power to move us never goes away.
Jonathan and Paul’s Excellent Adventure at the Society for Developmental Biology Annual Meeting
The one in which Jonathan Wells and Paul Nelson meet with friendly, open-ended questions, curiosity, and meaningful exchanges.
PZ Myers, the Baldwin Effect, “Wolpert abuse,” and Quote-Mining
If you accuse someone of quote-mining, you actually have to read the source that supposedly was mined, to understand the context.
Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress
Ontongenetic depth explained — and a challenge for PZ Myers.
Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part I: Naming Versus Measuring
The theory of evolution by natural selection does not explain the origin of animal form, because natural selection cannot account for origin de novo of the developmental stages required to construct (i.e., evolve) animals.
Designed, Yes — Just Not by God: The Remarkable Implications of Clarke’s Third Law
In public debates (and personal discussions) with Michael Shermer and Massimo Pigliucci, I’ve met an argument, advanced by both skeptics, which opens interesting and largely unexplored territory in the ID vs. naturalism controversy. In a new article, the science writer and astronomer John Gribbin steps into the same territory, a speculative region familiar to fans […]
Ontogenetic Depth 2.0: The Prequel
Okay. First admit the obvious. Ontogenetic Depth (OD) 1.0 was — well, it would be beyond charitable to say utterly inadequate. I realized this not long after reading PZ Myers’ first wave of criticisms. As I’ll explain, however, my realization stemmed not from Myers’ specific points (most of which were either minor quibbles, or missed […]
An Exercise on the Eve of Paul Nelson Day 2010
A few years ago, P.Z. Myers — with his Mencken-like genius for the memorable putdown — devised “Paul Nelson Day,” aka April 7, to record my annual failure to follow up on a promise to elucidate “ontogenetic depth,” a notion I floated in 2003. Much as I enjoy having my own day and all, I […]
Is Weather Forecasting A Counterexample To Complex Specified Information?: Jeff Shallit on Signature in the Cell
For over a decade, mathematician Jeffrey Shallit has been an outspoken critic of intelligent design. Recently, in a series of blog posts, he has attacked Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell (SITC) for what he sees as a variety of shortcomings. Some of Shallit’s criticisms merit careful attention, which we’ll present here in weeks […]