Addressing the first episode of Reasonable Doubts, specifically the child abuse scandal. See the Introduction for additional details about this podcast.
Irreducible Complexity is a term that was coined by the microbiologist Michael Behe in the early ’90s intended as an argument against Evolution. It has since received a lot of criticism from the scientific community, some justified and some not so much. I sometimes find that the easiest way for me to articulate my opinion on a topic is to do it as a response to someone who does a good job articulating the opposing point of view.
This is the ...Continue Reading →
The following essay is a commentary on an article by Maarten Boudry called “How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism” and, in a secondary sense, on an article by Barbara Forrest called “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection” which is one of the main articles Boudry is responding to.
There appear to be two main camps regarding the proper role of Methodological Naturalism in science ...Continue Reading →
I feel that I already addressed this. I made the point that some debates are not worth having so the fact that both parties agreed to the debate doesn’t make it any more worth having.
Also, take a look at the Wikipedia article on Omipotence. It describes some of the ways the omni-words have been defined. The two sides in the debate never explained which definition they were using.Continue Reading →
I am not sure I completely understand your question but it is not sensible to go thorugh life completely ignoring or outright rulling out any possitive claims that we don’t have evidence for, especially when it comes to things still out of our reach. You are right that the positive claim is the one that requires proof; but we must also aknowledge our limitations. Consider a reverse of this:
1) Abiogenesis is a positive claim
2) We don’t have evidence ...
I think I can agree with pretty much everything you’ve said.
First, the free will defense is a philosophical defense. i.e., it starts with the problem of whether a powerful/loving god would allow suffering and concludes that, postulating free will, it IS plausible to assume that such a god would allow suffering under certain circumstances. It takes free will for granted and does not attempt to prove it.
Next, let me just address a few points regarding the RD series on free ...