61
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 696:
Line 696: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 20:37, December 13, 2009
, 20:37, December 13, 2009→The Greatest show on earth
:::::The logic of this argument seems convoluted because it is based on a faulty premise: what do we think God would have done? That's an absurd question. No line of reasoning can depend on it. It is reasonable to infer design from something that is statistically implausible or impossible (e.g., finding a gold watch on a beach), but trying to reason in the opposite direction is illogical (e.g., drawing conclusions from the lack of a gold watch on a beach).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::::The logic of this argument seems convoluted because it is based on a faulty premise: what do we think God would have done? That's an absurd question. No line of reasoning can depend on it. It is reasonable to infer design from something that is statistically implausible or impossible (e.g., finding a gold watch on a beach), but trying to reason in the opposite direction is illogical (e.g., drawing conclusions from the lack of a gold watch on a beach).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::::If I understand correctly, that means that no argument can be based on our preconceptions on how God should act. I like this, because it has the additional effect of removing the evolutionists' "argument from poor design". Who are we to judge God's acts? Solving several problems at once is the hallmark of elegant explanations. Thank you very much. --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 15:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)