Did God really have something to do with creating living organisms? Why is the typical Darwinian response to this question so misleading/ deceptive?
The continuing survival of Darwinist orthodoxy illustrates Thomas Kuhn’s famous point that the accumulation of anomalies never in itself falsifies a paradigm, because “To reject one paradigm without substituting another is to reject science itself.”[ 5] This practice may be appropriate as a way of carrying on the professional enterprise called science, but it can be grossly misleading when it is imposed upon persons who are asking questions other than the ones scientific naturalists want to ask. Suppose, for example, that I want to know whether God really had something to do with creating living organisms. A typical Darwinian response is that there is no reason to invoke supernatural action because Darwinian selection was capable of performing the job. To evaluate that response, I need to know whether natural selection really has the fantastic creative power attributed to it. It is not a sufficient answer to say that scientists have nothing better to offer. The fact that scientists don
Related Questions
- Did God really have something to do with creating living organisms? Why is the typical Darwinian response to this question so misleading/ deceptive?
- Why am I required to select a Question and provide a Response when creating my MySeminoleState account?
- What is essential for living organisms to synthesize proteins?
