17
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68:
Line 68: + + + +
Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct? (view source)
Revision as of 15:38, May 29, 2008
, 15:38, May 29, 2008no edit summary
“That's a loaded question, because it (falsely) presumes that the record of natural history shows an evolutionary view.” No, it presumes that the record of natural history indicates an Earth that is much older than 6,000 years. To claim otherwise requires a denial of fundamental scientific epistemology. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:58, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
“That's a loaded question, because it (falsely) presumes that the record of natural history shows an evolutionary view.” No, it presumes that the record of natural history indicates an Earth that is much older than 6,000 years. To claim otherwise requires a denial of fundamental scientific epistemology. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:58, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
I did not intend for this to turn into a debate about Creationism, I merely wanted to highlight what I see as tenuousness in the criteria of deciding between supernatural explanations of events, or if I may make an extension of this idea, religions themselves. Upon what grounds may a Christian say that Islam is false, yet Christianity is true? Or that a cult such as Scientology is explicitly false?
[[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]