Is God Perfect?

[rce]

Aristotle has this all covered. It hinges on the assumption that a pot can never make a potter. According to the prime mover has by necessity be perfect since the harmony of nature is in such perfect balance. Thomas Aquinas explored this extensively. Darwin cracked it, so now Aristotle's theory isn't necessarily the only logical way to go. Philosophy is still exploring where Darwin's new paradigm of thought will take us.
...

I believe you are wrong on the importance of Darwin. The "Copernican" change of views from Aristotle to modern day science and philosophy was Immanuel Kant's Kritik der reinen Fernuft.

Kant described why you could not look at the world in the way Aristotle did. Th science in Aristotle's tradition was about explaining everything as a cause of the "first immovable mover". Kant, however, claimed that logic and mathematics where the only two areas where we can know what is right, thus the only two areas open for real science.

Later on, scolars of other sciences managed to save science and developed the way we look at science now, where something is scientifically proved if it is by far the most probable answer to a question, for instance through statistical measurements and empirical tests.

[TomOfSweden]

I believe you are wrong on the importance of Darwin. The "Copernican" change of views from Aristotle to modern day science and philosophy was Immanuel Kant's Kritik der reinen Fernuft.

Kant described why you could not look at the world in the way Aristotle did. Th science in Aristotle's tradition was about explaining everything as a cause of the "first immovable mover". Kant, however, claimed that logic and mathematics where the only two areas where we can know what is right, thus the only two areas open for real science.

Later on, scolars of other sciences managed to save science and developed the way we look at science now, where something is scientifically proved if it is by far the most probable answer to a question, for instance through statistical measurements and empirical tests.

I think you are right in down playing the importance of Darwin in a strictly scientific/rational sense. But almost nobody got it back then. What I mean is that it wasn't until Darwin came with his theory people in general started putting two and two together. It wasn't until then the religious community reacted.

This is still today the major issue. The laws governing the universe are so distant that it's hard to see how they aply to us directly. So what if we don't any longer need 13 angels correcting the orbits of planets, (which where required for the earth in the middle thoery). But when it comes down to me and my body and my origins, it gets personal. I think the reason why the focus is on Darwin and creationism rather than the Kopernican revolution is 100% emotional. I'm pretty certian that if you ask any devout to-the-letter Christian who belives in creationism, they'll have no problem with Kopernicus or Kant.

Anyhoo. Let's replace "Darwin" with "new science" and I've said the same thing. But it's a lot less clear what I mean.