Stephen: <<This is just one more example of a favourite Darwinist trick of trying to shift the burden of proof to the critics. If Darwinists cannot explain something, they demand *the critic* show that what the Darwinists cannot explain is "impossible" to explain. But since a universal negative is itself
"impossible" to prove, Darwinism is again protected from falsification.>>
So your argument is that it could not have evolved but you have no evidence. Fine. That there is presently perhaps no explanation does not mean that there will not be one. Perhaps the mathematical ability is unrelated to evolution ? Perhaps it isn't.
Stephen : <<What I *do* claim is that: 1) Darwinism *has* not explained how "a series
of historical accidents in the shape of random mutations in species of apes, which were selected for survival in Africa 5-10 mya, have produced a species (namely Homo sapiens) that has a mathematical facility to understand the underlying mathematical laws upon which the universe is constructed.">>
Wow. And because of that it is therefor wrong ? How funny.
>SJ>Denton notes that there is a "unique correspondence" between "the
>logic of our mind and the logic of the cosmos" that enables us "to
>comprehend the world" and that "it is hard to avoid the impression that a
>miracle is at work here":>>
PM>People sometimes interpret observations as if they are 'miraculous'. Of
>course miracles do not necessarily require 'intelligence' on the other side.
Stephen: <<This is just a red-herring to avoid facing up to the fact of the "unique correspondence" between "the logic of our mind and the logic of the cosmos".>>
Which you claim to be 'unique'. But the logic of our mind evolved when we found out more about the logic of the cosmos.
Stephen : <<Real "miracles" *do* "require 'intelligence' on the other side.">>
Do they ? Why ?
>SJ>To put it in a nutshell, Davies observes that