Nature comes first

[fredd bear]

it must have evolved through some kind of Darwinian evolution.

Not sure that claim may be reasonably made.

My understanding is that Christian theologists argue that god is eternal and perfect, having always existed. Being subject to evolution makes god imperfect ,and therefore not god. By definition, god is super-natural, and not required to meet physical, or scientific laws.


Richard Dawkins seems to be a pretty good evolutionary biologist . I really enjoyed his demolition the argument of irreducible complexity. However, I'm not overly impressed with him as a philosopher.

I recommend the article linked below;

https://www.philosophersmag.com/footnote...rd-dawkins

Credentials of the writer:;

MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI IS THE K.D. IRANI PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AT THE CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK. HIS BACKGROUND IS IN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, THOUGH HE HAS RECENTLY DEVELOPED A KEEN INTEREST IN STOICISM (AT HOWTOBEASTOIC.ORG). HIS MOST RECENT BOOK (CO-EDITED WITH MAARTEN BOUDRY) IS “PHILOSOPHY OF PSEUDOSCIENCE: RECONSIDERING THE DEMARCATION PROBLEM” (UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 2013). HIS OTHER WRITINGS CAN BE FOUND AT PLATOFOOTNOTE.ORG.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Richard Dawkins; Good Scientist, Bad Philosopher:

https://www.patheos.com/resources/additi...rd-dawkins

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Why do philosophers hate Richard Dawkins:

This is from Reddit, so make of it what you will. I think's it's not bad.)


Because anything Richard Dawkins has to say on philosophy is terrible, especially on philosophy of religion. Dawkins' education is in the field of evolutionary biology, not philosophy, so you basically guarantee that whenever he speaks at length of philosophical matters, everything he says is riddled with error.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/c...d_dawkins/