3 ms·
Some Limits of Science and Evolutionary Processes [pdf]
- gnat 8y agoI'm nervous about the source. It has no Wikipedia entry. Its "technical publications" page <http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/11> http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/11> includes "Review: Knowledge and Christian Belief" <http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0068/BartlettReviewOfPlantinga.docx> http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0... and "Developing an Approach to Non-Physical Cognitive Causation in a Creation Perspective" <http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0007/non_materialist_cognition_v4.rtf> http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0.... And they've published "Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies " <http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/66> http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/66>, on a science which accepts supernatural forces (or rather, a science which isn't dependent purely on "naturism" aka "only natural (vs supernatural/spiritual) forces" for explanations).
- yters 8y agoIn that case, you may want to also avoid the works of Newton, Bayes, Pascal, Darwin, and Mendel.
- a235 8y agoWow, another "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy paper. Mixing all the things: math theory, algorithmics, evolution, genetic optimization algorithm in its simplest math model. All to make the conclusion that the authors could not understand those things all together. On Goldbach’s conjecture: "Hypothesizing that the new axiom is true requires faith; faith in its consistency within the formal system" And concluding: "However, not all possible phenomes can be produced by genetic algorithm. So it is a matter of faith to believe that every existing phenome [..] could be the result of material things interacting with one another."
- yters 8y agoAre there any specific errors you've identified?