Philosophy of Religion: Covers A Great Deal of Ground Including

Philosophy of Religion
Covers a great deal of ground including
•Epistemological matter: Is there such a thing as cognizance of the supernatural?

How can we be sure?
•What is the nature of the connection between Gods and Morality?
•How are science and religion related? Are they naturally opposed,
complementary, or independent bodies of beliefs?
•
•We will concentrate on:
•Arguments concerning God’s existence
•Teleological or Design Argument
•Cosmological Argument
•Ontological Argument
•First Up:
What sort of argument is it?

{Looking at Chapter 2}
Inductive argument
Analogical Argument? Inference to the Best Explanation?
It can be presented as either type of argument. In the following presentation,

it is treated as both. Paley tended to think of his argument as analogical,
Hume treats it as such. ID arguments are presented as IBE.
Inductive argument
Analogical Argument
Inductive argument
Analogical Argument
Over the course of his life, Gilligan has been

kept in the dark about many things. The
skipper has perhaps been over protective,
but, for some reason or another, Gilligan has
never had exposure to some common
everyday objects that we all take for granted.
Skipper has taught him a great
many things about the
However, he has had extensive exposure to technology. He has had
things on board the S.S. Minnow, that are training involving fuel gages,
directly relevant to his work. voltmeters, speed indicators..
Inductive argument
Analogical Argument
The storm strikes, and the Minnow is

shipwrecked.
Inductive argument
Analogical Argument
The next day, and Skipper has the

responsibility to scout the island, find
inhabitants if any, and a way home. Skipper
and Gilligan go one way, Ginger and Mary-
Ann another, Mr. Howell and Lovey stay with
the ship, while the professor tries to patch the
ship, and repair the radio.
Inductive argument
Analogical Argument
Gilligan finds a peculiar object in the sand
But, Gilligan has never seen

or used a watch before.
Can he figure out what it is?
Can he figure out how it got
there?
Inductive argument
But, Gilligan has never seen

or used a watch before.
Can he figure out what it is?
Can he figure out how it got
there?
Skipper encourages Gilligan to think analogically.
•Compare two cases
•One case ‘thoroughly known’
•Second case ‘partially known’ Put yourself in Gilligan’s
shoes: What are your
thoroughly known cases?
(the pocket watch is your
‘partial’ case)
The thoroughly known case
shares certain features with
the partially known case. What
can we safely infer from the
similarities?
Inductive argument
Features of thoroughly known Features of partially known case
case (Voltmeter or fuel gage) (the pocket watch)
Inductive argument
case (Voltmeter or fuel gage) (the pocket watch)
•Dial markings •Ditto
•Pointer •More than one
•Numbers •Ditto, but not same numbering
•Hashmark •Ditto
•Purpose •???
•Origins •???
•Design by Humans •???
•Intelligent Designers •???
How much of the questions marks can Gilligan fill in? To what specificity?
Inductive argument
Does it excite any wonder, or

And now, Gilligan sees a
questions about how it got
turtle.
there? Paley says “NO,” but it
It is a common feature of the should. Why doesn’t it? And
environment. why should it?
Inductive argument
Why not? Because turtles, and
other things like them are so
ubiquitous! We are used to
them.
Does it excite any wonder, or
questions about how it got
there? Paley says “NO,” but it
should. Why doesn’t it? And
why should it?
William Paley
Inductive argument
Why should it excite wonder? Suppose
turtles did “stick out like sore thumbs,”,
like the watch does on the deserted isle;
and we were asked to think analogically
about turtles’ origins, as Gilligan is forced
to do:
What would we conclude?
William Paley

case (The Watch or similar item) (the turtle or similar item)

case (The Watch or similar item) (the turtle or similar item)
•Articulated parts put together •Ditto
•Functional Whole •Ditto, but how many functions?
•Energy source •Ditto
•Clear Purpose •Ditto, but how many purposes?
•Artificial Origins •???
•Design by Humans •???
•Intelligent Designers •???
Features of thoroughly known case (The Watch

Features of partially known case (the turtle or
or similar item)
similar item)
•Articulated parts put together
•Ditto
•Functional
•Ditto, but how many functions?
•Energy source
•Ditto
•Purpose
•Ditto, but how many purposes?
•Origins
•???
•Design by Humans
•???
•Intelligent Designers
•???
Now, how might Behe supplement this case

bringing it into the 21st Century? More on that
in just a bit!

or similar item)
similar item)
•Ditto
•Functional
•Energy source
•Ditto
•Purpose
•Origins
•???
•Design by Humans
•???
•???
Now, how might a skeptic, (Kitcher or

perhaps David Hume) respond to this
analogical argument?

or similar item)
similar item)
•Ditto
•Functional
•Energy source
•Ditto
•Purpose
•Origins
•???
•Design by Humans
•???
•???
Analogical Arguments are stronger when the two things being compared
share higher numbers of known properties, weaker when these numbers
are low. So, lets find the disanalogies. How are the turtle and watch
importantly different, and how do these differences throw doubt upon the
analogical argument Paley presents?
Distinctive Features of Distinctive Features of partially

thoroughly known case (The known case (the turtle or similar
Watch or similar item) item)
Distinctive Features of Distinctive Features of partially

thoroughly known case (The known case (the turtle or similar
Watch or similar item) item)
•Materials (metals) •Biological materials
•Known to be Artificial •Origins not known
•Humans witnessed design and •Humans did not witness origins
construction
•Several purposes? Any
•One purpose “imposed” “imposed”?
•“operates” according to some •“operates” according to
basic physics. No self direction complex biochemical laws. Self
directed as well
Distinctive Features of thoroughly known case (The Watch or Distinctive Features of partially known case (the turtle or similar
similar item) item)
•Humans witnessed design and construction •Humans did not witness origins
•One purpose “imposed” •Several purposes? Any “imposed”?
•“operates” according to some basic physics. No self direction •“operates” according to complex biochemical laws. Self directed
as well
But, let us assume we can ignore the disanalogies,

and that the argument does show the best
explanation for the existence of turtles is that their
ancestors were intentionally designed by an
intelligence. How much can we safely infer about
this originating intelligence?
similar item) item)
as well
To begin to answer that question, why don’t we

compare the turtle to an artifact that is more complex
than the watch? Clearly, if it is more complex than
the watch, it is “closer” in the analogical sense, to the
thing we are attempting to explain. Now in my day,
such a wonderfully complex thing was a Ship of the
Line, Royal Navy..
similar item) item)
as well
In your day, an even better example is any of the

ships of the U.S. Navy, or..ahem.., the Royal Navy.
Now, using one such, let’s construct an analogical
argument along the lines that Paley recommends.
What can we really infer about the originating
intelligence that accounts for the turtle’s existence?
Features of thoroughly known case (Aircraft Features of partially known case (the turtle or
Carrier or similar item) similar item)
Features of thoroughly known case (Aircraft Features of partially known case (the turtle or
Carrier or similar item) similar item)
•Multiple purposes/multiple systems •Ditto
•All coordinated for one overall purpose •Ditto
•Navigation aids allow it to detect outside •Ditto
world and navigate/eliminate threats
•Product of centuries of development
•Ditto
•Trial and error learning and explicit planning
•????
using engineering principles
•Designed by teams
•????
•Subsystems designed by teams
•????
•Constructed by teams, distinct from designers
•????
•No one person has all knowledge of the
•????
vessel and its design
With the recent

advent of
Aircraft Carrier, and other such things (yes,
even including watches and clocks) are nanotechnology and
actually the result of corporate efforts over bio- tech
centuries, relying both on explicit design, using engineering this
engineering principles, and trial and error, fly- scenario seems
by-the-seat-of-your-pants experimentation. more plausible
This is carried out by many people, none of
which has all the requisite knowledge. Indeed, why
postulate spirits, or
The analogical argument would seem to immaterial
indicate that there is a similar story to tell designers? Why not
regarding the origins of organisms. So, mortal beings like
shouldn’t we infer some form of polytheism is ourselves, physical,
true?
but more
advanced?
Hume is not seriously entertaining polytheism, or the ancient

astronaut theory, but he is making a logical point:
The analogical argument underdetermines from a wide range

of possible explanations
The traditional mono-theistic explanation has some issues that
would not arise with some of its competitors.
Let’s look at the range of possible explanations set out on a

sort of scale, and then take a brief look at the issues that arise:
Agent-based explanations of organisms
Theistic Non-Theistic
polytheistic monotheistic poly mono
Within each subdivision,

And this is
are further gradations of only “half
category, reflecting for the story”….
instance, variance in
agents’ levels of
knowledge, power,
goodness.
Naturalistic-based explanations of organisms
Darwinian Stochastic
Modern
theories pre-
Punctuated Steady state Ancient DNA
equilibrium gradualism atomism discovery
Within each subdivision,

The other
are further gradations of half, does
category, most of which not even
are beyond the kin of your
humble author.
involve
designers or
agents at all!
explanations of organisms
Agent Naturalistic
Based
Theistic Non-theistic Darwinian Stochastic
The traditional
If you take into account monotheistic
the apparent
explanation has
imperfections in
organisms, all of these a hard time
theories, except one,have explaining
a relatively easy way to these.
explain them.
Agent Naturalistic
Based
A better
Example: The sea-turtle is example that
not well designed for
hits us closer to
terrestrial travel, and is
very vulnerable when home:
doing so. An all-good, all-
knowing, all-powerful
designer would have
Agent Naturalistic
Based
A better
example that
hits us closer
to home:
Human Teeth.
Agent Naturalistic
Based
A better
How does traditional monotheism example that
account for or “allow” the hits us closer
existence of flaws, pain, to home:
suffering, and imperfections in
the designed objects? That is our Human Teeth.
next lecture!
Agent Naturalistic
Based
Still, something very important can be taken

out of the argument so far. IF a case can be
made that of the candidate explanations, the
most likely, given the data to be explained
involve the actions of intelligent agents, then
THAT is an important result, regardless of
theistic assumptions. But, can that case be
made? Enter Dembski and Meyer..
These two proponents of ID will say that
we have paid insufficient attention to a
feature of life that it has in common with
another sort of human creation:
technology that deals with information
processing. They say the more telling
analogy is between DNA and such
artifacts..
The basic molecular building blocks of the
genetic code and the machinery that
maintains and passes it on can be combined
in many ways that do not accomplish what
DNA and cells accomplish. The functional
combinations, being but very few denizens in
a vast sea of potential combinations, (logical
and physical possibilities) are too unlikely to
have been brought about by what is
essentially chance operation of natural laws.
The claim is even more
bold: granted some sort
of gradual build-up of
today’s DNA/Cellular
machine-complex from
simpler progenitors, it is
demonstrable, via
probability calculus, that
the probability is
vanishingly small given
the time allotted. The
event most likely did not
happen in the amount of
time the universe has
‘given’ such random
processes to do
business.
When you consider the few
combinations that do function, you In fact the
are not only looking at a large closest analogy
statistical improbability of those to DNA we can
particular combinations, but you find in the world
of artifacts is
also see that they are wedded to
robotic assembly
functionality. Those particular lines, managed
combinations do something. and controlled by
Dembski is very impressed by this machine code.
'wedding' of improbability and
function.
•Features of partially known case (DNA/Cellular

Features of thoroughly known case ( Machine Code/
‘machinery’)
Robotic technology)
•Instruction code, machines that translate into

•Instruction code, machines that translate into physical
physical actions and constructs/assembles parts.
actions.
•All coordinated for construction of objects
•All coordinated for construction of objects (cars)
(cells/organisms)
•Product of centuries of development
•How long?
•Trial and error learning and explicit planning using
•Trial and error learning and explicit planning using
engineering and IT
engineering and IT?
•Designed by teams spread across space and time
•Designed by teams spread across space and time?
•Subsystems designed by teams?
•Constructed by teams, can be distinct from designers
•Constructed by teams, can be distinct from
•No one person has knowledge about everything designers?
involved
•No one person has knowledge about everything
involved?
It’s rather obvious. Aside from the questions

raisedofinthoroughly
Features the redknown
highlights aboutCode/
case ( Machine numbers
Roboticof Features of partially known case (DNA/Cellular ‘machinery’)
technology)
designer/creators, and the level of knowledge
or power they may or may not have, we must
•Instruction
also note code,
thatmachines that translate
no human beinginto physical
has everactions.
been •Instruction code, machines that translate into physical actions.
witnessed
•All coordinated fiddling around
for construction with(cars)
of objects nucleotides and
•All coordinated for construction of objects (cells/organisms)
sugars, and phosphates,
•Product of centuries of development putting them together
in such ways as we have seen people fiddling •How long did it take for DNA to come into being?
•Trial and error learning and explicit planning using engineering
around with computer codes and machines. •Trial and error learning and explicit planning using engineering and IT
and IT
So, the analogy fails on that ground. If we had •Designed by teams spread across space and time
•Designed
seen such by teams spread
things, oracross
if thespace andwe
thing timewere trying
to explaindesigned
•Subsystems were constructed
by teams of metals, and
silicon, screws, •Constructed by teams, can be distinct from designers
•Constructed by teams,servomechanisms and the like,
can be distinct from designers
the argument would be on stronger ground. •No one person has knowledge about everything involved
•No one person has knowledge about everything involved
Now, How might

Hume respond to
all this?
What is
Features more,known
of partially othercase
examples cited
(DNA/Cellular by Dembski
‘machinery’)
only work because they bear a stronger
analogical relationship to the things with which
we are already
•Instruction familiar, than do cells and DNA.
code, machines that translate into physical actions.
We leap in his direction in such cases as the
Rosetta
•How long didStone or DNA
it take for Mount Rushmore
to come into being?only because
we and
•Trial have previous
error experience
learning and of using
explicit planning human beings
engineering and IT
doing the sorts of arrangements or modifications
of the very sort of natural objects that we find in
•Subsystems
those cases, designed by teamsthere is in this case of
whereas
molecular
•Constructed bymachinery
teams, can be significant disanalogy in
distinct from designers
precisely
•No one personthat regard. about everything involved
has knowledge
Now, How might

Hume respond to
all this?
I don’t think your objection carries as much
clout as it once did my fine wigged friend: We
did not,ofuntil
Features partiallyrecently, witness human
known case (DNA/Cellular ‘machinery’)beings
arranging or modifying amino acids, genetic
materials, etc. with certain end states in mind.
It•Instruction
is true code,
thatmachines
no human hasinto
that translate ever witnessed
physical actions.
anything like an intelligence fiddling around
with those things in the past, but we can no-
•How long did it take for DNA to come into being?
longer say that we cannot witness things like
•Trial and error learning and explicit planning using engineering and IT
this in the present. Researchers are doing this
all the time. So, this takes away at least some
of•Subsystems
the force designed by teams
of your objection, especially the
further such nano-technological/biological
•No one person
research advances.
has knowledge about everything involved
Now, How might

Hume respond to
all this?
You are missing my point. I’m not only saying

that theofdiscrepancy
Features partially known casein materials
(DNA/Cellular is present,
‘machinery’)
but that even in your own 21 century research st
cases, the folks are making use of stuff that

previously existed
•Instruction code, machines for millions
that translate of years.
into physical They
actions.
are not building
•All coordinated theseofthings
for construction from scratch, but
objects (cells/organisms)
working with something that was already
there. Why should I not believe that atoms and
molecules could not come to have the sort of
informational/control functions that cells and
DNA have as the result of some essentially
random and unguided natural process?
•No one person has knowledge about everything involved
Now, How might

Hume respond to
all this?
Well, the long and short of it is that such

Features of partially known case (DNA/Cellular ‘machinery’)
processes would take too much time, in fact,
probabilities are that it would take much longer
than the code,
•Instruction Earth has existed, or the universe has
machines that translate into physical actions.
existed in order for these sorts of machines to
have come about by chance.
Well, mybyfine
•Designed teamsAmerican friend,
spread across space that’s going to
and time
take somedesigned
•Subsystems convincing.
by teams By your 21st century
models (soby I’m
•Constructed teams,told)
can bethe universe
distinct is somewhere
from designers
between 13has
•No one person and 15 thousand
knowledge million..oh
about everything involved I
mean billion years old, and Earth around 4500
million..er.. 4.5 billion. You mean to tell me
Now, How might
that isn’t enough time to hit the jackpot at
least once? Hard to believe my non-wigged
friend.
Hume respond to
all this?
Let me explain with an analogy:
Consider this string of letters, ignoring

the spaces and punctuation mark just to
keep things simple:
tta hme ct in oet
tah.
Imagine that you are drawing individual
letters from the 26 letter English
alphabet from a hat, each time placing
the letter back, before you draw again.
You can calculate the probability of
drawing just that string of letters in
that order. It will be very low. For each
draw you have a 1 in 26 chance of
drawing that specific letter. Doing the
math, you have a highly improbable
event. Considering all possible
combinations of 16 letters of the
English alphabet, you can see it is very
unlikely.
You have1 chance in 26^16 or
1 in 479,615,345,916,448,342,016 to
draw just that string. What is more..
tta hme ct in oet

tah.
If you set about reading all
those possible strings,
besides exhibiting infinite
patience, and
demonstrating that you
have a lot of time on your
hands, you will see that
most of them amount to
nothing. Some small
sample of them will
actually SAY something in
English.
So, let’s say you draw this string of letters
from the hat. Should you be shocked?
tta hme ct in oet

tah.
No. Improbable events like this happen every
day. We don't invoke a designer to explain
them.
Quite right. Now, suppose you

happen upon this combination of
letters, perhaps on a table in an
empty classroom, written on a
sheet of paper. Alongside sit a
pencil and a hat, containing the
Yea. letters on small cards. You would
probably infer that some sort of
random drawing had occurred and
someone recorded the results.
OK. Now consider this set, composed of just
those same letters:
This string is equally as unlikely, in the sheer
combinatorial sense, but it also has the
additional feature of functionality. It specifies
a sentence of English, carries a meaning.
the cat is on the
mat.
OK. Now consider this set, composed of just
those same letters:
This string is equally as unlikely, in the sheer
combinatorial sense, but it also has the
additional feature of functionality. It specifies
a sentence of English, carries a meaning.
the cat is on the
mat.
Yes, and is still as unlikely as the first. So
what additional point of importance are you
making here?
Just this: Suppose once again that

you see this combination of letters
on a table in an empty classroom,
Why do I written on a sheet of paper,
think I’m alongside pencil and hat full of
falling scraps of paper with letters on
into a them. What would you infer?
trap?
I would probably infer that the written
sentence was not the recording of the And, why would that be? Why
results of a random drawing, but would do you make that inference as
consider the most likely explanation to opposed to your earlier
be that it was a target for the drawing, inference in the nonsense
and that the class was attempting to hit string case?
that target. I would assume the results the cat is on the
were either not recorded or were
missing for some reason or another. mat.
Because I speak
So, there is something the
English?
functionality of which you are
acquainted with quite apart from
the particulars of the event you
witness in that room (or the
objects you see) So, aside from
the low probability, it is this
functionality or expression of
meaning that tends you toward
this inference to intelligence.
The situation with the building blocks of DNA
(nucleic acids and such) is like this
analogical case, but involves much larger
improbabilities. You must take into account
not only the possible combinations of the four
base pairs, but, the arrangements of these
combinations along the double-helix spine in
millions of places, slots or steps along that
ladder. These are akin to letters. There are
many more possible sequences of groups of
these amino acid base pairs than there are
letters of the alphabet. A vast majority of
such sequences, like our first string of
letters, don't do anything at all. Only a very
few sequences of the many that are logically
and physically possible are also functional,
and can code for and build organisms from
materials found in their environs, or brought
into the environs. (This does not include
probabilities of random origin of the protein
machines and amino acids that are their
bases). Addition of these reduces the odds
even more. The chances that functional cell-
building, self-replicating sequences having
occurred by chance are vanishingly small,
even given the age of Earth and universe.
Returning to the sentence in the classroom example,
let’s generously assume that someone set about using
the random drawing method to generate the
meaningful sequence. For each draw of 16, the chance
of hitting the jackpot is 1 in 479615345916448342016.
Now, suppose also that we make a 16 character draw
once a second. Suppose that we do pick a total of
479615345916448342016 times. We can expect, so
probability calculus tells us, to draw the magic combo
once in that set of draws.
But, let’s suppose we manage to hit it big exactly

halfway through our draws. How long has it taken?
23907672958224171008 seconds, or approximately
7,604,251,425,616 years. So, roughly 7.6 trillion years.
The universe is a mere 14 billion years old. So, if I
were to seriously consider the random drawing
hypothesis, with these parameters, I would dismiss it
as an unlikely explanation after having calculated
these things. I would conclude that the more likely
hypothesis for the origin of these marks on this sheet
of paper is that a literate speaker of English wrote
them down. Notice, things don’t improve all that much
if I assume a faster rate of speed, in line with
computer technology, for the random picking
mechanism. Suppose that it can pick 1000 16 letter
combos a second, and that the lottery hits the jackpot
halfway through the process. Now it takes 758,107,336
years. 758 million years. Once again, I’m forced by
that immense number, to take that candidate
explanation as remotely possible, given what I know
about the age of the university!
But, suppose I take into account that
there are other 16 letter meaningful
sentences of English composed of just
those letters, say (and this is a guess
folks) fully 1/10 of the total number of
combinations. Maybe a random
process generated one of this set? Is
that really too much to expect?
Then, if my math is correct, it would

take only 75.8 million years to hit one
of these targets. Once again, unlikely
given what I know about the age of the
human race, and random number
generators, even the low tech draw-
from-a-hat kind.
And the numbers are all the
more astronomical when you
are dealing with DNA and
protein building blocks.
But, that is precisely what I think you are not
giving enough serious consideration. Suppose
instead of your one room there are many. In
fact, suppose there are lotteries going on in
every room of every university on the planet.
So, even though it looks very surprising from my
point of view, in that single room at that single
university, that there be a meaningful string of
letters on that sheet of paper, and I thus
conclude that they were written by a literate
English speaker, nevertheless taking the
broader perspective, if I were to be taken on a
guided tour of all the rooms, all the ongoing
lotteries, I should really not be surprised to find
one of them that has generated a sentence. This
is the essence of what is called “the anthropic
principle.” We find ourselves very surprising,
and improbable creatures, when considered via
a narrow point of view (our own planet’s history)
but are perhaps quite likely to have come into
being via random processes when viewed from
the totalizing point of view.
An excellent analogy, but if you do the math,
the odds of genetic material and housing
proteins equivalent in complexity to the
simplest virus, coming about by chance events
is more than 1 in 10^100. To give you an idea
how big that is, there are about 10^86 or so
atoms in the universe. Add to that, the fact that
the complexity level of even the simplest of
living things is more akin to a complete book
(and a fairly fat one at that), than a single
sentence, you can see, even on the assumption
that time and space have provided us with
many rooms and many drawings, the
probabilities are so vanishingly small as to
suggest to us that the more likely explanation,
given the amount of time we are talking about,
is that things have been intelligently arranged,
something like that second hypothetical room
you walked into a few slides back. And this holds
even if you say all of this came about piecemeal
and gradually, through that long process. For
randomness might create, but it can also
destroy. You have to save the good stuff, while
adding to it.

Philosophy of Religion: Covers A Great Deal of Ground Including

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Philosophy of Religion: Covers A Great Deal of Ground Including

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Philosophy of Religion

Covers a great deal of ground including

•Epistemological matter: Is there such a thing as cognizance of the supernatural?

•What is the nature of the connection between Gods and Morality?

•Arguments concerning God’s existence

•Teleological or Design Argument

•Teleological or Design Argument

What sort of argument is it?

Analogical Argument? Inference to the Best Explanation?

It can be presented as either type of argument. In the following presentation,

Over the course of his life, Gilligan has been

The storm strikes, and the Minnow is

The next day, and Skipper has the

Gilligan finds a peculiar object in the sand

But, Gilligan has never seen

But, Gilligan has never seen

Does it excite any wonder, or

What would we conclude?

Features of thoroughly known Features of partially known case

Features of thoroughly known Features of partially known case

Features of thoroughly known case (The Watch

Now, how might Behe supplement this case

Features of thoroughly known case (The Watch

Now, how might a skeptic, (Kitcher or

Features of thoroughly known case (The Watch

Distinctive Features of Distinctive Features of partially

Distinctive Features of Distinctive Features of partially

But, let us assume we can ignore the disanalogies,

To begin to answer that question, why don’t we

In your day, an even better example is any of the

With the recent

Hume is not seriously entertaining polytheism, or the ancient

The analogical argument underdetermines from a wide range

Let’s look at the range of possible explanations set out on a

polytheistic monotheistic poly mono

Within each subdivision,

Within each subdivision,

Theistic Non-theistic Darwinian Stochastic

Theistic Non-theistic Darwinian Stochastic

Theistic Non-theistic Darwinian Stochastic

Theistic Non-theistic Darwinian Stochastic

Theistic Non-theistic Darwinian Stochastic

Still, something very important can be taken

•Features of partially known case (DNA/Cellular

•Instruction code, machines that translate into

It’s rather obvious. Aside from the questions

Now, How might

Now, How might

Now, How might

You are missing my point. I’m not only saying

cases, the folks are making use of stuff that

Now, How might

Well, the long and short of it is that such

Consider this string of letters, ignoring

tta hme ct in oet

tta hme ct in oet

Quite right. Now, suppose you

Just this: Suppose once again that

But, let’s suppose we manage to hit it big exactly

Then, if my math is correct, it would

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen