Futile

[poliphilo]

I've been on a message board where Darwinists and Creationists were slugging it out. Ouch, ouch, ouch!

Such dogmatism- on both sides.  But, as one of the posters pointed out, Darwinism is a scientific theory and Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory. They belong in different disciplines. 

It's as if one team turned up for the match in football strip and the other team in cricket whites.

Comments

[frsimon.livejournal.com]

I don't agree that Paley's argument is 'philosophical' in a sense that distinguishes it from 'scientific' arguments. It seeks to argue to an explanation of observed phenomena, no less than does an argument to the acidity of HCl from its reactions. The difference is Paley's proferred explanatory argument is not very good*. Why that might be, what the criteria for inference to the best explanation might be, and whether that's what science gets up to anyway - now these are subjects for philosophical argument.

*Given what we know now. I'm not dissing Paley in his context.