Re: Plantinga: Whether ID [Intelligent Design]

Pim,

So let me be the "devil's" advocate for a minute. Just suppose for
the sake of argument that God did something like the IDer's claim--
say, directly cause a flagellum to form in such a way that it is
unexplainable using normal scientific explanations. Call it a miracle
or whatever you like. But now it's part of our normal world and is
propagated in normal ways, but came into being via some extraordinary
divine act.

Again, for the sake of argument, let's not simply dismiss it by
saying that God doesn't work this way.

What would or could we say about this scientifically?

TG

On Mar 17, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Pim van Meurs wrote:

> I am glad I am not the only one who sees the problems in
> Plantinga's 'arguments'. The reason why the supernatural has no
> scientific value is because it explains anything and thus nothing.
> And it is clearly not falsifiable. What if I state that God created
> our universe two seconds ago with all the history and memory to
> make it seem it has existed for billions of years?
> What if I claim that God created life and the flagellum? What does
> it explain? How can it be disproven?
>
> Pim
>
> Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
> What kind of mushrooms grow in Plantinga’s garden?
>
> “The judge gives at least two arguments for his conclusion that ID
> is not science. Both are unsound.
>
> First, he said that ID is not science by virtue of its “invoking
> and permitting supernatural causation.” Second, and connected with
> the first, he said that ID isn’t science because the claims IDers
> make are not testable that is verifiable or falsifiable. The
> connection between the two is the assertion, on the part of the
> judge and many others, that propositions about supernatural beings
> that life has been designed by a supernatural being are not
> verifiable or falsifiable.
>
> Let’s take a look at this claim. Of course it has proven
> monumentally difficult to give a decent definition or analysis of
> verification or falsification. Here the harrowing vicissitudes of
> attempts in the 50s and 60s to give a precise statement of the
> verifiability criterion are instructive. But taking these notions
> in a rough-and-ready way we can easily see that propositions about
> supernatural beings not being verifiable or falsifiable isn’t true
> at all.
>
> For example, the statement “God has designed 800-pound rabbits that
> live in Cleveland” is clearly testable, clearly falsifiable and
> indeed clearly false.
>
> “Theories” must be testable and falsifiable. This is simply a
> statement which could either be true or false. I’ve never been to
> Cleveland, so it may be true. How can Plantinga say it is “clearly
> false” unless he has been to Cleveland and done a thorough house to
> house search. Those 800-pound rabbits may have been specially
> created and are munching on 50-lb cabbages right now.
>
> Testability can’t be taken as a criterion for distinguishing
> scientific from nonscientific statements.
>
> Not statements, Al. “I ate a telescope for breakfast,” is not a
> “scientific statement” because a telescope is a scientific instrument.
>
> That is because in the typical case individual statements are not
> verifiable or falsifiable.
>
> As another example, the statement “There is at least one electron”
> is surely scientific, but it isn’t by itself verifiable or
> falsifiable.
>
> It isn’t verifiable or testable partly because it is an incomplete
> sentence. A more complete sentence might be: “An atom contains at
> least one electron.” It may not be testable to 100% surety at our
> present state of scientific ability, but that only means we lack
> the instrumentation. We can’t know the composition of black holes,
> but we know they exist.
>
> What is verifiable or falsifiable are whole theories involving
> electrons. These theories make verifiable or falsifiable
> predictions, but the sole statement “There is at least one
> electron” does not. In the same way, whole theories involving
> intelligent designers also make verifiable or falsifiable
> predictions, even if the bare statement that life has been
> intelligently designed does not.
>
> Who has articulated a “whole theory involving intelligent
> designers”? And what are the “verifiable or falsifiable predictions”?
>
> Th erefore, this reason for excluding the supernatural from science
> is clearly a mistake.”
>
> And the conclusion doesn’t follow from his arguments.
>
> Dick Fischer
> ~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
>

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Sat Mar 18 02:52:52 2006