Not bad other than that Plantinga is wrong. Actually a better ruling would have been that ID is scientifically vacuous but the Judge did an excellent job at showing why ID fails to be scientifically relevant.
In http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/plantinga_intel.html, Mike Dunford explores some of the problems with Plantinga's 'arguments' which are mostly philosophical.
I am sure more articles may follow. It may not come as a surprise that I am not impressed by Plantinga's arguments.
Pim
Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote: Here ya go! ~ Janice
Whether ID [Intelligent Design] Is Science Isn't Semantics
Science and Theology News | Alvin Plantinga
http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2690.htm
Judge John Jones gave two arguments for his conclusion that ID is not science. Both are unsound, says Alvin Plantinga.
Received on Thu Mar 16 23:49:29 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 16 2006 - 23:49:30 EST