The 21st in the series called The Case Against Physicalism. In previous posts on Top Down or Bottom Up, we investigated the challenges to science from the facts of beginnings. Here we look closer at the science of the origin of life. We see a key difference between operational science and origins science which helps explain the science community’s aversion to the idea of a cause for life outside of the cosmos.

Photo by USGS on Unsplash. Catamarca Province, Argentina. Were conditions on the very early earth conducive to chemical evolution? Is the process of non-life to life transformation even remotely possible given the huge injection of information?

Will our current scientific studies of the origin of life prove to be the equivalent of alchemy?

Alchemy has a long and noble history. It spans four millennia…

This is the twentieth in the series The Case Against Physicalism. It continues the last post on the beginning of the universe, multiverse, of all things natural. Following the lead of well known physicist and science communicator Paul Davies, we look at options for answers to the question of ultimate reality. Any answer, we find, involves faith of some sort.

Brett Jordan on unsplash.

The way the story goes, science involves fact, religion involves faith. As atheist evangelist Victor Stenger famously said:

“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.”

Clever. But, is it true that faith divides science from religion…

Image: Unsplash. Physicist Sean Carroll in his eagerness to defend ideas about the Many Worlds Interpretation, the megaverse and string/M theory says the old idea of “falsifiability” must go. In doing so, he inadvertently but effectively argues for the inclusion of Intelligent Design as legitimate science.

Physicist and science popularizer Sean Carroll argues that the idea of falsifiability as a way of defining science needs to be retired. But his argument for this rejection leaves the door wide open to the scientist-proponents of intelligent design.

Carroll, a physicist at California Institute of Technology and the Santa Fe Institute, is one of the most respected voices in physical science communication. His book Something Deeply Hidden is a highly regarded effort to make sense out of quantum mechanics by appealing to Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation.

The Edge brings together top thinkers from a variety of disciplines and…

Recently I published an article on the science of the beginning of our universe including the history of that idea and some recent efforts to dislodge the necessity of a beginning and the Big Bang. My favorite Medium interlocutor, Graham Pemberton, published an article to refute my ideas and conclusions. As Graham and I agree on far more than we disagree on, I’m a bit hesitant to dig too deep into areas where we might not agree. However, he poses some interesting questions and some gentle suggestions that my presuppositions or dogma may be getting in the way of understanding…

Graham, if you are interested in looking at more of the scholarship relating to the historicity of the resurrection you may want to check out this site and post:

Also, historian of the first century mid-East, N.T. Wright has written extensively on it. Here is a great one:

Resurrection of the Son of God.

if you would like to point me to some of your preferred sources I'll be happy to check them out.

This is the nineteenth in the series The Case Against Physicalism. In this post we consider the fact that the universe began. There are few discoveries that have caused more consternation among dedicated physicalists than this simple but profound realization. Why does this still rile many and how do scientists propose to escape the obvious metaphysical implications of this discovery?

Image: Wikimedia Commons. Albert Einstein with Georges Lemaitre and Robert Millikan at California Institute of Technology in January 1933. Lemaitre, a priest and physicist, is called the “father of the big bang” as he was the first to suggest that the universe began with a “primeval atom.” Einstein was adamant that there was no “creation even” and that the universe was static, despite his own General Relativity theory contradicting that idea. He accused Lemaitre of allowing his Christian dogma to get in the way of science and told him his physical insight was “abominable.” Perhaps he apologized and admitted that it was his own dogma that was getting in the way of science.

Carl Sagan memorably defined the universe as “all there is.” For much of human history, humans believed that the universe always was. Buddhism and other Indian religions suppose an eternal and infinite universe. The Abrahamic religions presented the idea of…

Photo by Robin Benzrihem on Unsplash

One of the greatest benefits of writing on Medium is engaging with others, some who share your ideas and perspectives and others who do not. Almost since I started posting (now up to almost 75 posts), I have greatly enjoyed and appreciated the interchange with Graham Pemberton, one of the more insightful and thoughtful writers on the same topics that interest me, mostly the space where science and faith meet.

I recently shared my thoughts on Easter and expressed my conviction in the historical truth of the resurrection. Graham responded to that with a detailed and intriguing challenge to that…

Photo by Dennis Guten on Unsplash. Does the world rest on a tower of turtles? The story, told here in the William James’ version, is used to describe the problem of infinite regress. Is there no end to regress when discussing where the laws of nature come from?

This is the 18th in the Case Against Physicalism series. Here we examine the four basic explanations for the emergence of the laws of nature that provide the reliable functioning of our universe and by doing so, allow science to gain understanding of how the universe works.

Most humans used to believe that God or gods, through continual maintenance and activity, kept the world going. The sun rose and set because Helios drove his fire chariot across the sky on a routine basis. The planets wandered the skies based on the continual involvement of the creator.

Now, that view is…

Easter is celebrated around the world especially by the world’s two billion who profess a faith in Christ. But the central and most important issue in Christianity is the historical event of the resurrection. Belief or unbelief rests on this single, crucial question. If it did not happen, Christians are of all people the most to be pitied, as one of the founders of the faith claimed.

Image: Freestocks on unsplash. Easter today conjures up more images of colored eggs and easter bunnies than images of a man dead three days from a torturous death walking out of his tomb. The issue divides, with little middle ground.

Easter celebrates the physical return to the body and human life of a man who died one of the most cruel deaths imaginable nearly 2000 years ago. The finality of death of the…

From ScienceTechDaily. The headline and subhead promise a scientific explanation to one of the great mysteries of microbiology: how do protein folds happen? But, does the research and the article reporting on it deliver on that remarkable promise. Does this story “reconstruct evolution?” Not even close.

Do articles on science intended to educate non-scientists accurately reflect the facts? Physicalism is not science but a belief system or philosophy claimed by many to be based on science. It dominates our cultural drivers including science journalism. Here’s a recent example of how much of science writing misleads.

Readers of the Top Down or Bottom Up publication and my series “The Case Against Physicalism” are well aware of my contention that much of science writing is wrong. Intentionally or not, it presents as facts ideas that are unproven and supports a belief system that misrepresents science. That is because…

Gerald R. Baron

Husband, father, grandfather, semi-retired, farm advocate, author, communicator. Deeply curious about science, nature, spirit and history.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store