Re: Plantinga: Whether ID [Intelligent Design] Is Science Isn't Semantics

Plantinga's article has a curiously desultory voice. He takes
potshots at the ruling without actually meeting its objections. Of
course, he is a philosopher, so this is unsurprising. Dunford's
opinion is spot-on and surprisingly charitable, not something one
expects from Panda's Thumb. If ID luminaries think they can tout the
philosophical version of ID in print while hawking a more YEC-tested
version in the classroom, they have been proved woefully mistaken by
Kitzmiller.

I do agree with Plantinga, however, that the current system of
jurisprudence is flawed and makes unqualified judges into ersatz
philosophers of science, demarcating fields for government approval on
the advice of self-interested Academies and such. I also agree that
"ID is not science" is a serious gloss that does not reflect the
common usage of the word in the slightest. Not that our concern over
such issues will have any effect on the real world. I'm afraid this
sort of thing follows directly from having a public school system and
a quasi-uniform national curriculum. When you call on your
constituents to pay the educational piper, it should be expected that
some people would want to call the tune. A public system must have
gatekeepers to resist this.

Of course, a private system would not have these limitations, but
that's a whole other ball of wax.

Chris

On 3/17/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 Fri Mar 17 07:37:09 2006