[Vision2020] Eugenie Scott and Ted's Logical Possiblities

[Michael]

Ted,

 

Thanks for the vigorous response.  Your efforts to get us back on the
original track might be working!

 

I.

Regarding a discussion of Creation Science, You Write:

My position is that all "coherent" theories that illuminate this discussion,


whether minority theories or not, or from other cultures or religious 

traditions or not, should be considered.  A statement like this leads to
endless 

complexity, it appears.  I should not be surprised.

 

Perhaps it would be wise to stick to a focused debate about whether 

Intelligent Design and/or Creationism are "scientific theories" and if so,
what 

theories among all the possible on this subject should then be included in a
science 

classroom?  Once philosophers wade into the deep, deep stormy waters of 

speculative theology, ..

 

Me: 

I do not think the discussion waters have gotten as murky and deep as you
propose.  Perhaps they might get to this condition, but I think the issues
have been carefully narrowed so far.  But I confess that we have not been
directly addressing Eugenie Scott's presentation, or your previous
discussions of what comprises true science.  I am partly to blame for this
since I jumped into the middle of this broader discussion. Things somehow
got very epistemological instead of cosmological!  

 

I don't think our discussions of theism and epistemology have been the
result of speculate theology.  As I already conceded to Joe, I'm skeptical
of the ability of Natural Theology to get us very far and I'm firmly
grounded in what I take to be Special Revelation. The range of analysis and
argument surrounding the epistemological questions Joe has raised are
actually fairly narrow.  

 

I'm also not sure I'm happy including any theory to the discussion just
because it is "coherent."  It would seem that a theory would have to have
more going for it than that.

 

II.

Ted Wrote:  It seems in your comment on top above you are asserting I was
making an 

argument I was not making in my response to your referencing of Plantinga.  

 

Me: You only included the second half of my argument.  I was responding to
your following statements:

 

"But to assert that belief in God is "something immediately produced
'because'

 of the 'evidence' presented to the senses of the complexity and beauty of 

the world" is quite simply a factually incorrect statement, if applied to
all 

human beings, at least if belief in a monotheistic God who created the
universe 

is the sort of God referred to."  

 

In reply to this I wrote:

"You are correct; if there was a properly functioning belief producing

mechanism (undamaged) in each and every human being that triggered the

belief in an Almighty Creator upon the 'evidence' of the beauty and grandeur

of 'creation,' then each and every human being would be a monotheist.  But

of course, we know this is not true.  But the fact that there is therefore

no such belief forming mechanism is not the only alternative."

 

In other words, Plantinga's epistemology  is not "quite simply a factually
incorrect statement if applied to all human beings."  This is because the
distinction between proper and improper functioning is crucial to his
epistemology.  If there was not importance given to improper functioning,
then I would agree with your assertion.  But this is a wrong assumption.
Further, Plantinga's account is not only a logical possibility; it looks a
lot like the traditional Abrahamic religions, thus giving it greater
relevance to the broader discussion.

 

III.

You Wrote:  If it can be shown that the "Classical Christian view" on
Intelligent 

Design/Creationism is a "scientific" view, it deserves consideration in a
science classroom, along with any other views on this subject that have the
appropriate merit as 

"scientific" theories.  .My point, rephrased, is that if we are going to
discuss with an open mind all  the options that are tenable relating to
"science" for Intelligent Design 

and/or Creationism in science classrooms, then all tenable
religious/spiritual 

views or other sorts of views (aliens genetically engineering of human 

intelligence: the Raelians) on this subject should be presented and debated
for their 

"scientific" merit.

 

Me:  I think Joe has made some good distinctions on this subject already.
But I would like to add the fact that there should be room in a science
class to discuss topics that can have an informative role in how the
direction that scientific creativity goes. But it is not clear what your
take on this is:  Is it important that the Christian View be inherently
'scientific' or is it sufficient that the Christian View be merely "tenable"
and "relating to science?" 

 

 If you think that the earth is 6000 years old, this is going to inform how
Jane, a geologist, approaches her hypothesis formation.  You think it will
inform Jane to Jane's harm; but if it was true, it would inform Jane to
Jane's benefit. In the same way, if Creationism is true, then scientists are
going to have to be prepared for a 'paradigm shift' if they wish to move
forward with regard to some current evolutionary paradoxes, gaps, problems,
etc. If Creationism was true, and if most scientists were laboring with a
good education on just how this could possibly impact their research, then
this paradigm shift would be come about with much less pain.  Perhaps this
is the only way it could come about at all.  So with all this in
consideration, it would not seem silly to include some subject matter on
different metaphysical frameworks in the science classroom.  I think there
are other complicated factors like this, but this one example should suffice
for now.  Because of this, I don't think it is necessary to call Creationism
a 'science,' as such, out side of its potentially potent ability to inform
scientific hypothesis formation-just as does the broader evolutionary
narrative that most scientists currently assume.  

 

 

IV.

You Wrote: I think the claim that we should limit our options regarding what
theories 

may have scientific merit, that renders them suitable for science
classrooms, 

for Intelligent Design/Creationism, a "suspicious" suggestion, not
appropriate 

for the investigation of the truth without preconceived biases antithetical
to 

the scientific method.To say the alternatives are "atheism or evolution"
might make a great sound bite, and fire up the faithful, but it is a false
dilemma.  

 

Me: I do not believe this addresses my argument thus far.  Scott asserted
this false dilemma with regard to Phil Johnson, but I pointed out that Phil
Johnson furthers arguments for the very dilemma in question.  A false
dilemma only comes about when someone assumes there can only be two possible
options.  But if the fact that there are only two possible options is the
conclusion of a sustained argument, then the opponent needs to then address
the sustained argument.  The charge of 'false dilemma' would not be an
appropriate response.   Further, as I previously noted, there is nothing
inherently wrong with argumentative and social context limiting the possible
options.  Other options might be 'logically possible' or perhaps 'coherent,'
but that does not mean that they are going to be sufficiently plausible for
the audience in view.  The very issue we are discussing now has a 2500 year
history, and during this time 'theism' versus some form of 'evolution' have
been dominant counter proposals.  It would make sense therefore to continue
the discussion in this vein, albeit leaving the 'logical options' open to
someone who thinks they can give reasons for a plausible or interesting
third option. 

 

 

V.

You Wrote:  What I mean is that there are elements of the social/political
forces at play 

in the USA attempting to promote Intelligent Design/Creationism being taught


in science classrooms in the context of specific interpretations of the 

Christian Religion that block having the discussion broadened to include all


theories that impact this subject.  

 

Me: Yes, sorry I misunderstood your point originally.  And I agree with this
point.  I believe this is a social/political issue.  However, I do not think
that Evolutionary assumptions are immune to this either.  You say that many
people believe in a Christian God.  Well, if many people also came to
believe that this not only has scientific import but very likely decreases
the plausibility of evolution, then what would be the problem?  The problem
would be non-theists trying to get their evolutionary assumptions back into,
or more strongly rooted in, the classroom; and there would be many
social/political forces at play.  Right?

 

Thanks!

Michael Metzler

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051019/675f7369/attachment-0001.htm