Difference between revisions of "Law of the excluded middle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
In classical logic, this principle for a proposition A would be A V ~A. | In classical logic, this principle for a proposition A would be A V ~A. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Usage in Creation/Evolution Debate == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The law of the excluded middle is invoked in the creation/evolution debate. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Evolutionists sometimes attempt to dismiss counter-evidence to evolution and abiogenesis, claiming that this should not be taken as evidence for special creation. Creationists point out that either life either began naturally or supernaturally; there is no middle option. This means that evidence against the naturalistic explanation (evolution) is necessarily evidence in favour of the supernatural explanation (creation). | ||
| + | |||
[[category:logic]] | [[category:logic]] | ||
Revision as of 02:42, January 16, 2009
The law of the excluded middle is a principle in modern logic that means something is either true or it is false. There is no "middle" between true and false.
In classical logic, this principle for a proposition A would be A V ~A.
Usage in Creation/Evolution Debate
The law of the excluded middle is invoked in the creation/evolution debate.
Evolutionists sometimes attempt to dismiss counter-evidence to evolution and abiogenesis, claiming that this should not be taken as evidence for special creation. Creationists point out that either life either began naturally or supernaturally; there is no middle option. This means that evidence against the naturalistic explanation (evolution) is necessarily evidence in favour of the supernatural explanation (creation).