This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
When Richard Dawkins said that evolution made it possible to be a fulfilled atheist, he was clearly linking science to (un)belief. I have no problem with that, but it seems inconsistent on his terms.Likewise, if claiming that "irreducible complexity" is non-scientific, then surely so is "irreducible inefficiency" (my term for the argument Coyne makes in the article you reference).Either we can legitimately draw metaphysical conclusions from science, or we cannot, and if we can, then either those conclusions are scientific or they are not. Fair's fair.I agree with Hunter's observations, though I think his accusations of "liar" and delusional" are unfortunate.
"I agree with Hunter's observations, though I think his accusations of "liar" and delusional" are unfortunate."That's because your Highest Good is not truth, but rather something like "respectability" or "reputation amongst the heathen."
I agree to your point...___________________VincePayday loans Today
Post a Comment