Talk:A Guide to the Scientific Knowledge of Things Familiar

message: User:K. Lastochka added the following comment in the article
:"Such explanations are in conflict with the theory of evolution", I am blanking this sentence pending a re-phrase: these are not necessarily in total conflict with evolutionary theory, and it is entirely possible to believe in both God and evolution. Let's try to think of a better way to say this.
I have moved this comment here when reverting her edit. The edit has been reverted for the following reasons.
I cannot see any way in which the statements that beasts are covered with fur because God has enrobed them thus and, more particularly, that animals from cold climes have thicker fur because of God's goodness is not totally at odds with evolution, including most theistic evolution ideas. These answers leave no room for the concept that the animals obtained fur or thicker fur by a gradual evolutionary process and is thus nothing more than hard line creationism. 
Put another way, the answers can be seen to be equivalent to a Just so story or a Just-so story set against a scientific backdrop - "God saw that the mouse was cold, and knowing that fur would protect against the cold, gave fur to the mouse". Cross-reference this with the earlier statements about divine providence and it will be seen that the overall thrust is that animals are the way they are due to God's goodness, not due to any natural process.
Th article does not say that evolution is in conflict with religion, merely that this particular answer to this particular question is. This seemed to be the editor's primary concern, for which I cannot see any basis. GDallimore (Talk) 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution 

message: :"Nevertheless, religious rather than scientific answers to certain questions are prevalent in the book, particularly answers inferring divine design."
That should be "implying", shouldn't it? Marnanel (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing indirect about the answers given in the book. GDallimore (Talk) 14:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but how can an answer infer anything? Answers can't think or reason. Maybe we could put "answers involving divine design"? Marnanel (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds clumsy to me and doesn't get the point across. "Infer" means "conlude from the evidence", and that's exactly what the author is doing - from the evidence that birds have wings which keep them warm and that birds are also dumb beasts who cannot clothe themselves like humans, the author concludes (infers) that God exists. GDallimore (Talk) 09:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  inferring 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A Guide to the Scientific Knowledge of Things Familiar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083522/http://www.math.nuk.edu.tw/jinnliu/papers/Cavalleri-Thesis-Water.pdf to http://www.math.nuk.edu.tw/jinnliu/papers/Cavalleri-Thesis-Water.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified