Reply
Mon 7 Sep, 2015 06:08 am
Because I believe "as nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design" is meant to be "as nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer but offers countless examples of unintelligent design".
What is your opinion?
Context:
According to a recent Gallup poll, only 12 percent of Americans believe that life on earth has evolved through a natural process, without the interference of a deity. Thirty one percent believe that evolution has been "guided by God." If our worldview were put to a vote, notions of "intelligent design" would defeat the science of biology by nearly three to one. This is troubling, as nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design. But the current controversy over "intelligent design" should not blind us to the true scope of our religious bewilderment at the dawn of the twenty first century.
--Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris
"But" entails a contradiction. Noting that there are many examples of "unintelligent design" does not contradict the lack of evidence to which Harris referred.
@oristarA,
Ori, perhaps contrary to postings above, I'd say yes. However one might then reword the following sentence to omit the second "But," maybe replacing it with "Yet"
@Setanta,
How about use "rather, nature offers countless..."?
@oristarA,
If you were to put a comma before "rather" as well as after it, it would be OK.
@oristarA,
Quote:What is your opinion?
My opinion is, it works okay with either.
"nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design"
This is fine. Consider:
I can think of no reason to believe in a supernatural creator and dozens of reasons to doubt it.
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
"nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design"
This is fine. Consider:
I can think of no reason to believe in a supernatural creator and dozens of reasons to doubt it.
If the author said ""nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design to doubt it", it will be fine to me.
But the author offers no "to doubt it", which is exactly where the confusion arouses.
@oristarA,
"countless examples of unintelligent design" would be the reason to doubt it.
To clarify my answer, both "and" and "but" work equally well in that example.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace