Search found 261 matches
- Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:35 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Science
- Topic: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism
- Replies: 41
- Views: 22862
What is important for us as philosophers is to avoid arguments like; We cannot imagine a way something as complex as a mitochondrian could develop other than by Darwinian evolution. Here's a way it could develop other than by Darwinian evolution Nonsense! We've already ruled that out using argument...
- Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:14 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Science
- Topic: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism
- Replies: 41
- Views: 22862
Any old story will do, so long as it isn't The Wrong Story?! That looks like very bad science, and I hope no one is actually working to that agenda. I'm not sure any old story will do mick. It's just that we need to know how organic complex forms evolved from simple inorganic molecules. Just becaus...
- Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:01 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Science
- Topic: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism
- Replies: 41
- Views: 22862
- Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:45 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Science
- Topic: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism
- Replies: 41
- Views: 22862
But it is surely implicit within any theory of evolution that there must be some kind of primordial organism(s) from which everything evolved and developed. I I could be contradicted on this point then I am already making gains in the philosophy of the subject! I think that modern evolutionary theo...
- Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:30 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Science
- Topic: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism
- Replies: 41
- Views: 22862
- Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:10 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Science
- Topic: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism
- Replies: 41
- Views: 22862
There is a line of argument in Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box that complex cellular components like mitochondria could not have evolved by natural selection. It's basically a cellular version of the argument that says that eyes could not have evolved by natural selection. It has been roundly...
- Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:33 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Science
- Topic: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism
- Replies: 41
- Views: 22862
Sorry mick, I was being a bit sloppy there. What I mean is that you will find all the philosophical, scientific and theological objections in any half-decent creationist critique of evolutionary theory. Of course, you are right that this doesn't make such objections necessarily theological, rather t...
- Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:20 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Science
- Topic: A Non-religious Critique of Darwinism
- Replies: 41
- Views: 22862
- Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:14 pm
- Forum: Book Club
- Topic: Current Reads: What is Everyone Reading?
- Replies: 183
- Views: 101026
- Sat Mar 01, 2008 6:51 pm
- Forum: Introduce Yourself
- Topic: First Appearance
- Replies: 3
- Views: 3569
- Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:36 pm
- Forum: Book Club
- Topic: Current Reads: What is Everyone Reading?
- Replies: 183
- Views: 101026
- Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:32 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Mind
- Topic: A Philosophy of Mind
- Replies: 2591
- Views: 660297
- Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:28 pm
- Forum: Introduce Yourself
- Topic: Hi fellow philosophers
- Replies: 8
- Views: 5420
- Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:46 pm
- Forum: Introduce Yourself
- Topic: Hi fellow philosophers
- Replies: 8
- Views: 5420
- Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:57 am
- Forum: About the Magazine
- Topic: Philosophy Now magazine Suggestions Box
- Replies: 155
- Views: 153958