On this blog I will very irregularly post my personal thoughts about paleontological evidence against Neodarwinian evolution and for intelligent design, as well as occasional general musings about intelligent design theory and natural philosophy.
On March 19th 2016 University of Toronto's Wycliffe College hosted the grand debate "God, Science and the Universe: What's behind it all?" (YouTube) with atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss, Intelligent Design theorist Stephen C. Meyer, and theistic evolutionist Denis O. Lamoureux.
In this debate Denis Lamoureux presented several arguments against Intelligent Design that I here want to discuss and show why they fail.
Because Christopher Brown's excellent book "Aquinas and the Ship of Theseus" is not easily available and very expensive, I simply have to share these few paragraphs about the subject of 'substantial forms', which plays such a crucial role in Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics of matter and form (hylemorphism):
The Ontological Argument is a highly sophisticated philosophical argument for the existence of God that is often poorly understood by believers and universally dismissed or even ridiculed by atheists, who usually do not properly grasp the argument either. In his anti-religious pamphlet "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins made a complete fool of himself with the embarassing remark that the defendants of the Ontological Argument even "felt the need to resort to Modal Logic", which showed that he was completely ignorant of the fact that this argument simply is an exercise in modal logic (see this Q&A by William Lane Craig). The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell once mocked the Ontological Argument as nothing but "a case of bad grammar". We will get back to him at the end of this post.