Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: r9etb
If we do suppose that the detection of design really does belong in the philosophy dept., would it not then be logically necessary to relegate the identification of "non-design" to the same dept.?

Absolutely! In fact, I've made that very point on an ID thread just a few weeks ago. Naturalism is itself a faith.

56 posted on 10/24/2006 9:12:24 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: Oberon
Absolutely! In fact, I've made that very point on an ID thread just a few weeks ago. Naturalism is itself a faith.

I'd go about halfway with that ... absolute naturalism is a matter of faith, just as absolute creationism is.

But here in the real world, we've got a more complex reality where we know that some things occur naturally; and we know that it's possible for things to be designed for specific purposes -- including, increasingly, biological entities.

I recall once reading something by Einstein, about his thought processes in coming up with Special Relativity. His first step was to investigate the assumptions under which science was currently operating.

It seems to me that the assumption of "random processes only" is open to investigation -- certainly evolutionary biology treats it as a given. But it is up to those who do not consider it a "given" to establish sufficient grounds to revise the assumption.

57 posted on 10/24/2006 9:52:06 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson