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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Darwinian evolution will not meet the condition for explaining away design.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.