But how is evolution, like laws of nature, an explanation rather than merely a description.
(Notice the intentional absence of a question mark in the previous sentence)
Think about it.
How did laws of nature arise?
Why don’t they change?
What sustains them?
Physicists repeatedly tell me there is no evidence of their having changed.
Then, why, i ask, do they not change/
The answer always amounts to, “because they haven’t done so before.”
So, you’re telling me, a bridge doesn’t just get up and start walking around because it’s against the laws of nature. Translated: The laws of nature don’t change because it’s against the laws of nature.
This reminds me of Robin Williams’ joke about what the police in London said before they carried guns:
“Stop, or I’ll say stop again!”
Religious attempts to counter scientists’ “explanations” of things don’t realize science was never meant to explain anything in the Aristotelian sense of final causes. The first step in scientific analysis of phenomena is to deny outright final causes (well, not really deny - as that would be philosophical - but to weed out, dig out, eliminate.
Because scientists mostly do this unconsciously, they end up with nihilistic delusional disordered thinking such as that of Richard Dawkins and Sean Carroll, who support Dennett’s “Eliminative materialism.”
But how is evolution, like laws of nature, an explanation rather than merely a description.
(Notice the intentional absence of a question mark in the previous sentence)
Think about it.
How did laws of nature arise?
Why don’t they change?
What sustains them?
Physicists repeatedly tell me there is no evidence of their having changed.
Then, why, i ask, do they not change/
The answer always amounts to, “because they haven’t done so before.”
So, you’re telling me, a bridge doesn’t just get up and start walking around because it’s against the laws of nature. Translated: The laws of nature don’t change because it’s against the laws of nature.
This reminds me of Robin Williams’ joke about what the police in London said before they carried guns:
“Stop, or I’ll say stop again!”
Religious attempts to counter scientists’ “explanations” of things don’t realize science was never meant to explain anything in the Aristotelian sense of final causes. The first step in scientific analysis of phenomena is to deny outright final causes (well, not really deny - as that would be philosophical - but to weed out, dig out, eliminate.
Because scientists mostly do this unconsciously, they end up with nihilistic delusional disordered thinking such as that of Richard Dawkins and Sean Carroll, who support Dennett’s “Eliminative materialism.”