Here are the installments on Paul Draper's important article, "Irreducible Complexity and Darwinian Gradualism: A Reply to Michael J. Behe", Faith and Philosophy 19:1 (2002), pp. 3-21:
1st installment: Behe's argument
2nd installment: Three common but bad criticisms of Behe's argument
3rd installment: Are Behe's examples irreducibly complex?
4th installment: Behe's revision
5th installment: Are indirect routes to irreducible complexity really too improbable?
6th installment: Are direct routes to irreducible complexity really impossible?
I'll be buried under a pile of work for at least a couple of weeks, so in the meantime, I'll be re-posting a few things. Until then, be well!
The position is a permanent post (equivalent to Associate Professor in the US). Details here . H/T: Yujin Nagasawa
A popular view in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion is that while there are many arguments for theism -- cosmological, ontolo...
0. Introduction 0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, ...
Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil” 1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure ...