Thursday, March 22, 2007
Plantinga Reviews Dawkins
1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its 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.
Enjoy!
1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its 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.
Enjoy!
Comments:
Well,
First, I would say, read the review. Secondly, the quote is from Dawkins and I was using it as a teaser to Plantinga's critique. If it still isn't clear, no, my position of unguided Darwinian processes has not changed.
First, I would say, read the review. Secondly, the quote is from Dawkins and I was using it as a teaser to Plantinga's critique. If it still isn't clear, no, my position of unguided Darwinian processes has not changed.
>>If it still isn't clear, no, my position of unguided Darwinian processes has not changed.
And that would be?
And that would be?
I am in agreement with Plantinga, indeed Dawkins is no philosopher, his arguments may be slick, but they are easily poked with holes. I also agree that "unguided" evolution is full of problems. Millions of life forms do not accidentally, haphazardly, unintentionally, arrive at purposeful and useful existence.
Further, I do not believe, as is often casually thrown into the lectures on the origin of species, that evolution could ever explain the origin of LIFE ! Where does the life force that caused that "DNA" to form come from...that "DNA" which we cannot reproduce, even when we purpose to replicate it, our best attempts only come up with some raggedy looking RNA. And how do we even get the random, chance, amazing accident of natural processes to form RNA, we simply do it in the most controlled and regulated lab environment we can conjure up. And that's just to form a few sad strands of RNA.
So, that's my position, evolution does not and cannot explain the origin of life.
Regarding the Fine Tuning Argument, I think it fails on both sides of the table. As I've heard it argued, you cannot work with a theoretical probability, when you don't even have a way of knowing what that probability may be (i.e. millions of universes make the probability of evolution much more likely).
I hope amidst all of my inane babble you were able to understand my answer. I really do.
Post a Comment
Further, I do not believe, as is often casually thrown into the lectures on the origin of species, that evolution could ever explain the origin of LIFE ! Where does the life force that caused that "DNA" to form come from...that "DNA" which we cannot reproduce, even when we purpose to replicate it, our best attempts only come up with some raggedy looking RNA. And how do we even get the random, chance, amazing accident of natural processes to form RNA, we simply do it in the most controlled and regulated lab environment we can conjure up. And that's just to form a few sad strands of RNA.
So, that's my position, evolution does not and cannot explain the origin of life.
Regarding the Fine Tuning Argument, I think it fails on both sides of the table. As I've heard it argued, you cannot work with a theoretical probability, when you don't even have a way of knowing what that probability may be (i.e. millions of universes make the probability of evolution much more likely).
I hope amidst all of my inane babble you were able to understand my answer. I really do.
