Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:57:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020904205445.C38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020904230808.4c76a744.yid@softhome.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > It's because if you supply your own definition of "simple", Occam's > > razor can be used to prove anything. > > No, it cannot be used to prove *anything*; only that which may be > reduced to definitions and terms consistent with simplicity and > complexity, with the former affirmed and the latter rejected. That > having been said, it was a fairly strong early argument against medieval > scholasticism. (The only answer the Catholic church seemed to have for > it and other arguments against scholasticism was to declare Thomism > sacrosanct; until Vatican II partially reversed this position.) Allow me to give a demonstration of what I am talking about. A naturalist would insist that "natural" explanations are the simplist, no matter how complex the details. On the other hand, a supernaturalist would claim the exact opposite, although he cannot even begin to explain *how* God does the things that he does. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020904205445.C38687-100000>