RE: The Watchmaker: my fav argument
March 27, 2021 at 2:27 am
(This post was last modified: March 27, 2021 at 2:36 am by The Architect Of Fate.)
(March 27, 2021 at 1:52 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:He's pushing apologists propagandists like Swinburne and Lennox. Yikes!!! They further back the theory credentials aren't everything.(March 25, 2021 at 5:04 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: What exactly are your credentials in philosophy to denigrate the teleological argument without bothering to explain why? Let's say we have a theory A which superseeds evolution, and which completely explains existence and all aspects of beauty in nature... so what.. you stupid fools ? Is explaining the workings and the evolution of an object somewhat dispenses with the possibility of a creator?
Let's say you fully understand the workings of your car engine... and thousands of years from now, they found you car engine's fossils and assembled a fossil history.. Would they then be entitled to say : oh it looks like we understand better how engines evolved.. no need for manufacturing companies!
Modern philosophers like Swinburne and Lennox defend this same argument... They're not honest enough.. maybe? In any case, where is your essay responding to their defenses?
I majored in philosophy in college, and (if I may say) I was quite good at it. But I've always been of the opinion that anyone can philosophize no matter their credentials.
Though I used the term design, my post was not attacking design in general, but rather evolution denial. THAT'S what I feel is dishonest and predatory. I should have been more clear. I DID say "design is not pushed by honest people." I was thinking Kent Hovind-- not Oxford philosophers. So let me clarify. I think evolution denial is dishonest. Not design generally. You might have inferred this when I said something like "You should accept that God designed the system that let complex life form from microbes."
The design argument outside of evolution denial? Can't say I find the argument compelling. But neither do I think it is dishonest.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM