Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Darwinian evolution will not meet the condition for expla... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Darwinian evolution will not meet the condition for explaining away design.

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    0 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If Rs result from gapless chains of natural causal processes, there will be a full natural causal account for them at the immediate level, and design will play no immediate mechanistic explanatory role.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if design conceptions are explanatorily and scientifically superfluous at the immediate mechanistic level, that does not entail that they are conceptually, alethically, inferential, or otherwise superfluous in general.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The role of mind might be indirect, deeply buried, or at several levels of remove from the immediate production mechanism but would still have to be present at some level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Natural Theology
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Related

    Even if design conceptions are explanatorily and scientifically superfluous at t...If Rs result from gapless chains of natural causal processes, there will be a fu...The role of mind might be indirect, deeply buried, or at several levels of remov...

    Similar

    The design argument falls well short of what it claims to prove75%Even Richard Dawkins, an implacable opponent of design arguments, char...74%The Nyāya argument from design fails to establish that the world requi...73%Under naturalism, evolution is an unguided process selecting for survi...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: teleological-arguments
    Design will, in such cases, play no immediate mechanistic explanatory role... Darwinian evolution will not meet condition (e) for explaining away design
    View source passageHide passage
    However, if Rs result from gapless chains of natural causal processes, the evidential impact of those Rs again threatens to become problematic and ambiguous, since there will a fortiori be at the immediate level a full natural causal account for them.[12] Design will, in such cases, play no immediate mechanistic explanatory role, suggesting its superfluousness. But even if such conceptions were explanatorily and scientifically superfluous at that level, that does not entail that they are conceptually, alethically, inferential, or otherwise superfluous in general. The role of mind might be in...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises accurately capture the passage's reasoning that even though Darwinian natural processes provide a complete immediate-level explanation (Premise 1), design is not thereby superfluous in general (Premise 2) because mind must still be present at some level (Premise 3), which together support the conclusion that Darwinian evolution fails to meet condition (e) for explaining away design.

    Confidence: The argument structure is clear: the author concedes mechanistic superfluousness but argues this does not entail general superfluousness, concluding Darwinian evolution cannot explain away design.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (1 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit