Thank you kindly (and also thanks to several others who have complemented me along the way).


I think I need to make something clear, though: I have no interest in 'beating' pete in an argument. If he goes away cross but otherwise unchanged, then I agree with your earlier remark that the exercise is futile. On the other hand, even if I lost the discussion I would feel it worth while if pete remains a creationist but is more self aware: will he continue to wonder about those beetles, or will he simply forget them? Will he ask himself whether it is really an answer to end his initial creationist defence of marsupials in Australia with "that's how it is"? (We have yet to see the second explanation.) Will he wonder why it took somebody else to point out the number of beetles needed explaining, rather than realising that himself? In short, will he actually spend time thinking about what he believes, rather than simply accepting it.

Thomas Aquinas said that religion must be reasonable, by which he meant 'capable of being reasoned about' rather than 'plausible'. I would deem it a success if pete remains every bit of a creationist that he was before, but spent more time reasoning about it with himself.

The other thing I need to point out is that I go on holiday mid next week and will be absent for about three weeks. It is possible that we do not get to the end of this logical argument before then. That would be a shame, butif that's what happens, it can't be helped - I'm not giving up my holiday!