Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
Why do you believe this article is significant?Well I think there were two especially interesting things.1)The author differentiates between empirical gaps and logical gaps. This is especially important when attempting to counter God of the gaps claims. 2)I think he also shows that uniformitarianism runs into logical gaps. First, various results can occur over at widely differing rates. So one is unjustified in using some uniform clock based on how long the process normally takes today. Second, if one does want to assume uniformitarianism is somehow extra scientific; then one runs into serious questions that need answers. For example, one has to justify the belief that the universe is eternal. To do this one has to avoid entropy problems etc. If one then gives up the universe being eternal, then one has the issue of either something from nothing or creation ex-nihilo. Either solution is a death blow to uniformitarianism.There are other interesting points on why Darwin found his theory satisfying (It allowed him to reconcile natural evil and God), as well as other stuff. I would be happy to discuss further if you wish.CT
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |