I like what philosopher Alvin Plantinga says against Richard Dawkins' defense of naturalism – the belief that everything came naturally into existence apart from any purpose or design. Here’s how he summarizes Dawkins’ argument:
1. “We know of no irrefutable objections to its [naturalism] being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes
2. All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.”
Just in case we have missed the illogic of Dawkins’ conclusion, Plantinga illustrates its absurdity with a parallel example. He tells his wife that he has won the Nobel Prize for physics. Incredulous, she asks him how he knows this. He answers, “Well, I haven’t heard any irrefutable evidences against it!”
This is absurd to the max! Even if there weren’t any irrefutable evidences, this wouldn’t justify his assertion. However, if you want the prize enough, you might be able to convince yourself that it’s a reality.
That's what I called: The Dawkins Delusion.
ReplyDeletePerhaps even a self-serving delusion!
ReplyDeleteI suspect either you or Plantinga has missed a part of Dawkins' claims. What is missing seems to be the claim (completely justified empitemologically) that there is no good reason to believe anything supernatural has occurred ever, along with the admission of the vast amount of evidence supporting naturalistic biological evolution..
ReplyDeleteAbsent the evidence for the supernatural (and in this case absence of evidence is certainly evidence of absence), the conclusion that Darwinian processes are responsible for all life we see is completely justified by the scientific evidence and rational inference.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteI and many others just don't see the evidence. Similarity doesn't prove common descent. If you have evidence beyond a mere list of similar structures, then present it and don't just give me evidence for micro-evolution, something we all acknowledge.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMann: ...and don't just give me evidence for micro-evolution, something we all acknowledge.
ReplyDeleteGiven you believe (falsely) that Noah's Ark is historical, you have to accept macro evolution, since it is the only explanation for the subsequent divergence of animals from the Ark.
But, not only do you HAVE to accept macro evolution, you HAVE to claim a rate of evolutionary change which is so much higher than than the evidence actually supports, as to be laughable.
So don't claim that you don't accept macro-evolution/speciation, when your other positions commit you to a level of it which is far higher than real scientific investigation demonstrates is probable, and which would have mutations rate so high as to be ridiculous.
So, what is your explanation for the speciation and divergence of animals since the supposed global flood, some short thousands of years ago?
What about micro-evolution? Here's another possibility that might accord with ID: God had designed the various species with dormant genetic programs that He unlocked at particular times???
ReplyDeletethis is not dawkins argument at all
ReplyDelete