Hey,
I have a question . Please help me on it:
Stephen jay Gould thought the best way to argue against intelligent design as the origin of modern flora and fauma was to focus on such oddities of nature as a whale fetus's developping and then dissolving a comlpete set for teeth, in contrast with things like a seagull's wing.
Why did he think so, and why would Hume (philo)disagree, and argue that a seagull's wind would do just fine?
Philo as you certainly know is the character in the Dialogue concernnig natural religion by Hume
PLease tell me what you think about this question
B
