Last year I started blogging in August, and since then I have published 30 posts, and when I look back several posts stand out, at least in terms of viewership. The following list is ranked on viewership and you can judge yourself whether those are also the posts with the highest score in terms of quality.
In particular I enjoyed blogging in general and also in 2013 I plan to publish more and more about the creation/evolution debate. It is important that the voice of the creationists is heard on the web, and I will try to do that.
What I want to do more, are posts about developments in creation science. This year in August an important conference on creationism will be held, and I expect some nice insights for creation biology from that conference.
Of course I will be blogging about what interests me and as regular readers know, this will mostly cover molecular biology and genetics, which are after all, my fields of expertise.
Second, I am planning on publish some reviews of creationist literature in several series of posts. There is one book in particular, which involves several noteworthy insights about the evolution of morale, what I want to review in the coming months.
Another point of interest is the development in the ID-community, which in my opinion is changing more rapidly than imagined, and whether that is a good development remains to be seen. Besides that, I want to examine for myself what value there is in ID-ideas for the development of creation science.
What’s more important are the developments that are going to take place in creation biology. I am thrilled to be a creationist these days, when fascinating insights about evolution and molecular genetics are published everyday. We have to learn, in order to built a biblical view on creation. We have to search for, and take up every opportunity to develop a creationist theory which explains the origin and evolution of organisms.
Finally, I sure want to wish you all the best for a prosperous, successful and blessed 2013!
The Dutch organisation ForumC recently had an interview with Alister McGrath about his faith. He explains that he was in his youth a very aggressive atheist, partly because the religious tensions that were happening around that time in the world.
His conversion to religion happened when he was studying chemistry at the university of Oxford. In the interview he states that a deeper knowledge of the philosophy of science caused him to think that atheism did not have ‘the intellectual resilience’ he thought it has in his youth.
I embedded the video below. See for yourself (some words are in dutch, but the overall meaning is clear).
It has been a while since my last post. Last week I had some re-exams and I could not find some time for blogging. Still, I managed to find some interesting stuff on the internet.
First of all I want to give attention to the old and currently revived debate about group selection that is going on between the multilevel group selection theory scientists and the scientists that are admiring the gene-centered view of evolution.
The basic of the controversy lies in an article that was written by Nowak, Tarnita and co-authored by renowned evolutionist E.O. Wilson. The article about the evolution of eusociality states that the famous theory of kin selection (proposed by E.O. Wilson himself) was not longer plausible as an explanation of the evolution of eusociality and that instead group selection was the mechanism that caused the evolution of eusociality. I am not going to explain the concepts that they illustrate, and I refer you to the article in nature for a thorough explanation.
This disagreement has caused several strong reactions from the academic community and in that reaction they say thatthe points made by Nowak et. al. are a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and a misrepresentation of the empirical literature. Moreover several reactions from notable scientists are very personal, which was expected because many of the scientists involved have built their whole career about this. Richard Dawkins even exploded, not in a literal sense by the way, and accused Wilson of ‘wanton arrogance’. Wilson replied and said that he does not think that Dawkins is actually a scientist. In other words: Shut up and let me and my scientific peers do the thinking.
And that is really interesting. Scientists accusing each other that they have committed intellectual dishonesty, even if they are respected among peers and have performed thousands of experiments. I think it is a very natural process that a scientist becomes offended when his views, on which he has built his whole career are washed away (though I am not saying that Wilson is right). Moreover it raised the question when people can be called scientists. On which criteria can we call somebody a scientists. I am thinking about it now and probably will say something about it in the future.
Second, I found an interesting story about a preacher that was converted to atheism and because of he de-conversion he has lost his job, wife and house. It illustrates the fact that religious communities which are very close together do not know how to handle de-converts.