This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← The Kalam Cosmological Argument

k_docks's Avatar Jump to comment 153 by k_docks

Comment 12 by epeeist

Premise 1 was effectively torn to shreds a couple of centuries ago by David Hume. How do we know that whatever begins has to have a cause? This is simply a piece of inductive reasoning and as Hume points out we cannot extrapolate from cases that we have observed to cases that we have not. It also falls into his argument against design, we have observed only a small part of the universe for a limited period of time. How can we be sure that what we have so far observed is typical of the observations we have not made?

This statement sums up nicely the very reason why evolution is believed in by faith! To believe evolution has occurred as most scientists claim requires 'extrapolation from cases that we have observed to cases we have not'! Scientists have observed only a minuscule amount of the world around us for a very short period of time yet the claim is made 'evolution is a fact'. It would seem that if David Hume can tear premise 1 to shreds then it follows that evolution over millions of years is also shredded. Or is evolution exempt from this kind of reasoning? Evolution is built on the extrapolation of three small collections of data: a few dates from some rocks, a few fossilised bones and some observed mutations in DNA. Yes, evolution it's an undeniable fact, the evidence is overwhelming! NOT!

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:17:00 UTC | #508578