Search
-
Recent Posts
- Far-Right Now (the single) 27/03/2024
- Sample simony 26/03/2024
- O Absalom, my son, my son! 23/03/2024
- Towards critical thinking on Charismatic theology (3) 22/03/2024
- Towards critical thinking on Charismatic theology (2) 21/03/2024
Recent Comments
- Robert Byers on O Absalom, my son, my son!
- Jon Garvey on O Absalom, my son, my son!
- Robert Byers on O Absalom, my son, my son!
- Jon Garvey on Towards critical thinking on Charismatic theology (3)
- Peter Hickman on Towards critical thinking on Charismatic theology (3)
Post Archive
Daily Archives: 25/11/2011
The illusion of illusion
In my last post I looked at how the real heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory is a mental concept, comparable to the Anthropic Principle, that enables one to conceive of design witout a designer. This is what makes the theory so malleable to any actual data. I want to carry on with the example I was using there of the first self-replicating molecule, as it’s relatively uncomplicated to imagine. The question, you’ll remember, is whether it makes any difference (for a theist) to consider such a complex and closely specified self-replicating molecule as the work of God-as-designer, or as the work of God-as-behind-a-rational-and-scientific-fluke-of-extreme-improbability. I concluded that the only real difference … Continue reading
Posted in Creation, Science, Theology
Leave a comment
Theory, or mental back-flip?
What did Darwin actually present in 1859? I suggest it wasn’t so much a scientific theory as a plausible new way of looking at things. It wasn’t his evidence that “swept away the illusion of design” but the mental flip that suddenly enables one to see how design could happen without a designer. Darwin presented some evidence for descent with modification, but that in itself wasn’t new but common currency in the scientific community. His Big Idea was natural selection, and the only evidence he presented for that was a comparison with artificial selection. If a breeder can select for useful traits, why should not nature itself do so? It’s … Continue reading