William Rowe vs. Evolutionary Universalism
May 18, 2011 at 1:54 pm
(This post was last modified: May 18, 2011 at 2:13 pm by Nimzo.)
I came across an interesting blog post which compares Rowe's evidential argument against naturalism to an anti-evolutionary argument of the same form. I think the author (Alexander Pruss) is right - both arguments fail, and the analogy between just-so stories for evolutionary explanations and just-so stories for theodical explanations holds. Whether such just-so stories, in either case, should be given, is another question.
What are your intuitions about the soundness of the two arguments being compared? Do you think that Pruss' analogy holds?
What are your intuitions about the soundness of the two arguments being compared? Do you think that Pruss' analogy holds?
