0 ratings (0.0 avg)
0 reviews

Steve Aurand

Add friend

Steve’s Bookshelves

to-read‎ (0)

currently-reading‎ (0)

read‎ (0)

Stats | More…

“If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong, good or bad. To admit this would force philosophers to confront the possibility that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality. And since philosophers very much wish to think of themselves as scientists, this would offer them an unattractive choice between changing their allegiances or accepting their irrelevance.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

36 likes

“Before you can ask 'Is Darwinian theory correct or not?', You have to ask the preliminary question 'Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?'. That's a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is 'Man, that thing is just a mess. It's like looking into a room full of smoke.' Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.”
― David Berlinski

tags: ambiguitydefinitions, biology, clarity, darwinism, evolution, macro-evolution, macroevolution, science

20 likes