
Some Limits of Science and Evolutionary Processes [pdf] - yters
https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/31/32
======
gnat
I'm nervous about the source. It has no Wikipedia entry. Its "technical
publications" page
<[http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/11>](http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/11>)
includes "Review: Knowledge and Christian Belief"
<[http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0...](http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0068/BartlettReviewOfPlantinga.docx>)
and "Developing an Approach to Non-Physical Cognitive Causation in a Creation
Perspective"
<[http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0...](http://www.blythinstitute.org/images/data/attachments/0000/0007/non_materialist_cognition_v4.rtf>).
And they've published "Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific
Methodologies "
<[http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/66>](http://www.blythinstitute.org/site/sections/66>),
on a science which accepts supernatural forces (or rather, a science which
isn't dependent purely on "naturism" aka "only natural (vs
supernatural/spiritual) forces" for explanations).

~~~
yters
In that case, you may want to also avoid the works of Newton, Bayes, Pascal,
Darwin, and Mendel.

------
a235
Wow, another "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy paper. Mixing all the things: math
theory, algorithmics, evolution, genetic optimization algorithm in its
simplest math model. All to make the conclusion that the authors could not
understand those things all together.

On Goldbach’s conjecture: "Hypothesizing that the new axiom is true requires
faith; faith in its consistency within the formal system"

And concluding: "However, not all possible phenomes can be produced by genetic
algorithm. So it is a matter of faith to believe that every existing phenome
[..] could be the result of material things interacting with one another."

~~~
yters
Are there any specific errors you've identified?

