RE: Plantinga: Whether ID [Intelligent Design]

Isn't A. Plantinga, one of the most renowned Christian philosophers in America today, interested in the prospect of 'theistic science' whereby the previous/ traditional definition of (non-theistic) science would be altered? It seems that his advice is something that most IDM leaders have taken into account (even cherished) in formulating (or trying to formulate) their part-scientific, part-philosophical, part-theological paradigm of ID. Some of Plantinga's leadership seems to have worked, even if 'warranted true belief' does not translate into 'scientific paradigm' all that easily.

  To answer Dick's question, no one has articulated a “whole theory involving intelligent designers.” Dembski speaks of intelligent agents. But he is not a humanitarian scientist, other than his psychology studies, so an expanded theory of designers or agents likely isn't forthcoming. R. Hoppe has come up with a Multiple Designers Theory (MDT) which can be found somewhere at ISCID or PT. IDists attack it vigorously or ignore it.
   
  As for Pim's diagnostics, it is quite easy to say that 'the supernatural has no scientific value.' But is it so easy to say, on the other hand, that 'the scientific has no supernatural value?' Once one allows the term 'supernatural' or even the term 'supersensory' to enter the arena legitimately, the hegemony of physicalist-naturalistic science loses its lustre. Otherwise a person who accepts/believes in religious views but who practically preaches scientism is simply drawing protectionist boundaries around science (or rather big-S Science), speaking in black and white terms, that will not allow any progress or creativity to enter the realm.
   
  The IDM, it should be admitted, has been creative even just in forming the term 'ID' and trying to make it scientific. It has thus far failed to prove its case scientifically, aside from allusions to pattern-recognition and specifying complexity. Nevertheless, its rhetorical social-cultural 'renewal' movement has far exceeded what most at ASA would likely have imagined. This peculiarly American pseudo-scientific-social movement has gained its moment in the spotlight. What will it do now?
   
  Arago
   
  
"Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
        Asking if God acted in time once as your example indicates is a historical rather than a scientific question. In fact, the laws of science are gotten from the generalization of historical propositions---data gotten from experiments. Surely, you cannot generalize from one, unique event.

    Moorad

  
  
---------------------------------
  From: Terry M. Gray
Sent: Sat 3/18/2006 2:50 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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

                
---------------------------------
Enrich your life at Yahoo! Canada Finance
Received on Sat Mar 18 11:48:43 2006