2007-05-16 12:11:26 · 4 answers · asked by kolby a 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Evolution doesn't address cosmogeny (what happened 14 billion years ago), so it doesn't need to respond to it. Evolution of species by natural selection is a theory of how life came to be the way it is over the last few billion years on earth.
The cosmological argument rests on some pretty obvious fallacies anyway, so I don't think scientists of any sort need to lose much sleep over it.
2007-05-16 12:28:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
"The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally referred to as God. Among these initial claims are that the world came into being, that the world is such that at any future time it could either be or not be (the world is contingent), or that certain beings in the world are causally dependent or contingent. From these facts philosophers infer either deductively or inductively that a first cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose goal has been to provide some evidence for the claim that God exists.
The argument arises from human curiosity that invokes a barrage of intriguing questions about the universe in which we live. Where did the universe come from? When and how did it all begin? How did the universe develop into its present form? Why is there a universe at all? What is it that makes existence here and now possible? All grow out of the fundamental question which the cosmological argument addresses: Why is there something rather than nothing?"
2007-05-16 13:24:36 · answer #2 · answered by Allan E 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I'm still waiting for evolution's response to Dr. Denis Towers' discovery cited in his book, TWO BIRDS ... ONE STONE!, wherein he reported on a 9 year study he undertook that proved man and the snake were diametrically opposite in everything - behaviourally and anatomically!!
Also, tends to prove the Biblical 'Adam and Eve' story, doesn't it?? ... wherein the snake diametrically opposed man and God??
In fact, I think there are staring, glaring falsities re 'evolution of the species' right across the entire board of fields, if people searched well enough!
2007-05-16 12:23:40 · answer #3 · answered by dr c 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
In what sense?
2007-05-16 12:16:30 · answer #4 · answered by Joan H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋