It seems like in a limited sense this article is supporting evolution. Our senses deceive us just like what we would expect from evolution. Its only when we go a little further and say that we should be skeptical about every thought and thing we sense, that we can see evolution is wrong.
Well, Peter can speak for himself, but I think his argument is a reductio ad absurdum on evolutionary psychology. If it's true...it's false. Naturalistic evolution undermines reason, yet Darwinians rely on reason to prove evolution! So evolution generates a dilemma for the Darwinism.
Hello CJT! You wrote: "Its only when we go a little further and say that we should be skeptical about every thought and thing we sense, that we can see evolution is wrong."
Yes, that's partly why I only posted it on my personal blog and didn't cross post it here (although Steve apparently thought it was worth mentioning here too). My post does rely on the reader having an understanding of Plantinga's EAAN argument to make sense of it. Since I know both readers of my blog already, I know they have that understanding! But if I were writing for a larger audience, I would have had to take the time to flesh out exactly where I was going with it.
It seems like in a limited sense this article is supporting evolution. Our senses deceive us just like what we would expect from evolution.
ReplyDeleteIts only when we go a little further and say that we should be skeptical about every thought and thing we sense, that we can see evolution is wrong.
Well, Peter can speak for himself, but I think his argument is a reductio ad absurdum on evolutionary psychology. If it's true...it's false. Naturalistic evolution undermines reason, yet Darwinians rely on reason to prove evolution! So evolution generates a dilemma for the Darwinism.
DeleteHello CJT!
DeleteYou wrote: "Its only when we go a little further and say that we should be skeptical about every thought and thing we sense, that we can see evolution is wrong."
Yes, that's partly why I only posted it on my personal blog and didn't cross post it here (although Steve apparently thought it was worth mentioning here too). My post does rely on the reader having an understanding of Plantinga's EAAN argument to make sense of it. Since I know both readers of my blog already, I know they have that understanding! But if I were writing for a larger audience, I would have had to take the time to flesh out exactly where I was going with it.
Which is how Steve summed it up in his comment.