Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
No, it's not. No serious philosopher could take the design argument seriously after Hume's arguments against it. ID is a religious concept.
|
All Hume managed to do is conclude empericism doesn't get you anywhere, and if you think he's the first to argue that probability after the fact isn't a valid philosophical support for the theory of 'creationism' you really need to do some more classical reading, or even better come up with your
own opinions rather hten just regurgitating outdated philosophy.
As for the rest just because an arguement has been debunked doesn't mean that it still doesn't fall into the realm of philosophy. Every philosopher has gaping holes in their logic, but you don't seem to have any problem accrediting them.