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

Comment

← Unbelief in the pews

Mark Jones's Avatar Jump to comment 272 by Mark Jones

Comment 270 by Matt50

But, of course, I could be dead set wrong.

You could be wrong on natural selection, or, less likely, you could be right. So why do you mention it? Natural selection is just another scientific theory, so could still be overturned in theory. There is such overwhelming evidence for it currently, however, that it is not far off the evidence that the Earth is spherical, so the reasonable position is to accept its truth, just as one accepts the truth the Earth is not flat.

Nevertheless, you continue to point out a truism about science, that no theory is unassailable. But you say:

Why do we need God in the explanation - one consideration is that the biological explanations may just not be as justified as we first think they are.

This insulates the god explanation from the evidence, since everyone accepts that science, at the extreme, could potentially be overturned, no matter how much evidence accumulates for it. In other words, you think we need 'God in the explanation' no matter how much evidence accumulates for alternative explanations.

That really isn't going to work for anyone who values evidence.

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:42:08 UTC | #939331