Reply to comment

I appreciated Abby's comment in our discussion group this thursday, "Dennet proves that evolution doesn't need a plan, that doesn't meen there wasn't one!" It finally put into words what had been bothering me about his book. Is Dennet's arguement really logically convincing? Does he ever actually, unequivocally prove that there was not a plan in the act of creation? Does Darwin's work prove this? Ignoring for the moment his tone, which does not help his arguement, can you view his book as the dispassionate work he claims it to be?

I liked that he delivered his work as a challenge t oingage the reader in his argument but his work takes as many leaps of faith as the theories he is trying to refute. His explanation of evolution as an algorythmic process relies on skyhooks as much as the theory of creationism. Neither can be refuted, who can say that the world was randomly created or not? What evidence could there be? His theory is thrown out to explain what he does not understand and that one process is meant to serve as our alternate theory to creation. Well, if it's that simple then that must truely be a universal acid, destroying the need for any other explanations, serving as our skyhook with no need for support or foundation in empirical evidence.