In light of all the unknowns in these theistic “explanations,” one can hardly be blamed for concluding that “creation” and “design” are simply explanation names, not actual explanations. Compare to a naturalist saying, “X is the result an unknown, naturalistic (undirected) mechanism operating without a purpose.” It’s unclear why any of these unknown theistic explanations are supposed to be better than their unknown naturalistic counterparts.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2013/09/03/science-reply-to-wk/
Let's apply Lowder's reasoning to Stonehenge:
For his part, Wainwright believes that no theory will ever be fully accepted, no matter how convincing the evidence. “I think what most people like about Stonehenge is that nobody really knows why it was built, and I think that’s probably always going to be the case,” he says. “It’s a bloody great mystery.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/light-on-stonehenge.html?c=y&story=fullstory
By Lowder's logic, since we don't know how or why Stonehenge was built, appealing to human agency is not a better explanation–indeed, not a real explanation at all–than appealing to natural inanimate processes.
No comments:
Post a Comment