Home » Darwinism, Intelligent Design » “Ayala’s Potemkin Village” — review of Francisco Ayala’s DARWIN’S GIFT

“Ayala’s Potemkin Village” — review of Francisco Ayala’s DARWIN’S GIFT

September 26, 2007 Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Intelligent Design
35 Comments

Francisco Ayala’s latest book, DARWIN’S GIFT TO SCIENCE AND RELIGION, defends Darwinism against ID. For my review of that book for Science & Theology, go here.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

35 Responses to “Ayala’s Potemkin Village” — review of Francisco Ayala’s DARWIN’S GIFT

1 2
  1. 31
    larrycranstonSeptember 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm

    Excuse me, bornagain77, but I don’t think that quoting an urban legend about Albert Einstein does much to bolster your argument.

  2. 32
    NochangeSeptember 30, 2007 at 3:15 pm

    bornagain77,

    That’s an urban myth. As much as I support the message, the story itself isn’t true:

    http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

  3. 33
    bornagain77September 30, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    Larry Cranston:
    This has a thought provoking message no matter how you believe or even if the story is a urban legend.
    Or to put it more directly to you Larry ,,,prove to me that evil exists without ever alluding to a loss of good!!!!
    If you can do this, then the logic of the argument will be proven false,,%2 il then I think it warrants considerable merit as a strong possible overall truth of reality…In other words ….Ev;il in its truest definition is equal to non-existance, such as dark and cold are equal to non-existance of light and heat. Thus to choose to “do ev;il” is to choose to become more non-existant i.e. . To choose to do good is to choose to become more existant i.e. alive.

    That probably sounds impersonal to you, but it is pure and true in its logic since you cannot ever refer to ev^il without also referring to the loss of good. As such absolute good (God) must exist for their ever to even be a consideration of the loss of Good i.e. ev^il

  4. 34
    larrycranstonSeptember 30, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    bornagain77,

    I think you are being a bit overly sensitive. Read my post again, I am not disagreeing with you.

    My point was that the attribution of the question to Einstein is incorrect. If you knew that when you posted it, then you could be seen as lying, and that weakens your argument.

  5. 35
    rockyrOctober 1, 2007 at 10:53 am

    Prof. Sachs, the problem of evil has been muddled by all sorts of second and third rate thinkers and philosophers you quote. (I guess this muddle keeps modern philosophers and professors of philosophy employed.) The most authoritative and logical explanation of the problem of good and evil was presented by Thomas Aquinas. For a simple no-nonsense explanation see for example here

    http://www.aquinasonline.com/Q.....devil.html

    or see more detailed explanation here

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

    Just to give a quick example, considering that “an evil thing is first a thing. Consequently it has some existence, and so has some good, of which God is the cause.”

    An earthquake wiping out a city may seem to be evil, but it is not absolutely evil in all aspects, it may have have some good points or “higher” good, (which we may not be able to understand with our “Impure Reason” as you should know from your blog). It may lead to some good in future, such as new soil or a good habitat for some future generations of life in the area. (Theologically, an earthquake may also be a part of divine judgement on such a city, such as Sodom, so there may be more good hidden in wiping out depravity and evil.)

1 2

Leave a Reply