a philosophy of religion blog
I think that Mizrahi is correct that ID is not a strong "proof" for God, since there may be other designers, such as computer programmers (if we live in a computer simulation). But then, ID proponents have been claiming for years that ID is not religious in nature. So if Mizrahi is correct, then the objection that ID shouldn't be taught in public schools because it is religious in nature fails.
Hi Bilbo,I'm not sure where such a subject might be taught in public K-12 schools. (A biology class? But then the topic of cosmic fine-tuning doesn't really come up.) Perhaps it could be discussed in college, but then of course it already is.Best,EA
But if we live in a computer simulation, then wouldn't all biological features also be the result of computer simulation programs? And wouldn't evolution also be the result of a computer simulation program?
I'm not sure I see your point. Are you suggesting that K-12 public schools be taught simulation theory and theistic intelligent design theory in biology classes?In any case, this was my worry in posting your original comment. The post is on the topic of Mizrahi's simulation theory, not on advocacy of ID and other theories in K-12 public schools. I'm not really interested in pursuing public policy issues at this blog. Please feel free to comment, though, if the topic comes up here at a later date.Best,EA
Post a Comment