[Vision2020] Eugenie Scott's Talk at U of I

[Michael]

John,

 

Thanks for your detailed interaction.  I think what follows will help
clarify the problems with Eugenie Scott's talk.  Thanks!

 

 

Michael Previously Wrote:

 

> certainly, this is not a debate that can be won by pointing out some bad 

> science found in a few Creation Science publications,

 

 

John Writes:

 

Actually, that is exactly how this debate can be settled. Creation science
wants to play in the scientific field, so it should be judged by scientific
standards.

 

 

Me:

 

I do agree that it is legitimate to argue for the fact that Creation science
is not good science by giving individual examples of bad science.  But this
is only the case if it is done in a clearly argumentative way; Scott's
method was purely rhetorical.  She spent much time getting folks laughing at
a few very isolated examples; the examples given did not form any sort of
coherent argumentative picture at all outside of illustrating what was
supposed to be assumed as the general imbecilic nature of Creation science.
With the little amount of knowledge I have about Creation science, one thing
was certain about her examples: they would not be largely characteristic of
the work done by the many brilliant PhD scientists laboring who identify
themselves with Creation science. 

 

(for those of you who heard the talk: Given the strong rhetorical method of
Scott, I did not find scrutinizing any given example interesting.  However,
Dr. Gordon Wilson of New St. Andrews pointed out that the picture of the
white and black moths that Scott could only role her eyes over was actually
a very well argued point.  These moths do not spend their time on the bark
of trees but under leaves. If so, Scott did not bother to carefully
understand the argument she was ridiculing. But as Dr. Wilson pointed out,
you can find bad science anywhere if you are just looking for a few isolated
examples.)

 

 

Michael Previously Wrote:

 

> some of which were not even posing as 'scientific publications.'

 

 

John Writes:

 

The ID strategy clearly involves trying to pose as science.

 

 

Me:

 

My point was that the examples Scott gave were not found within publications
that were necessarily posing as scientific, academic journals.

 

 

Michael Originally Wrote:

 

> Running throughout her presentation were claims regarding the
"incoherence,"

> "logical fallacies," and "false alternatives" of the Creation Science and

> Intelligent Design movements (from here 'ID').These were various, but they

> all had a common theme.  Roughly, ID proposes Darwinsim or Tradition,

> Evolution or Creation, Atheism or Scientific Explanation of origins, etc.

 

 

John Writes:

 

The false alternative Scott presented was that ID supporters claim that
there are only two possible explanations on the origins of modern life:
evolution or creation. So, according to ID supporters, if you can show that
our current understanding of evolution fails, creationism has been proven.
Scott then argued that this is flawed reasoning. If our current
understanding of evolution is shown to be false, there are many possible
alternative explanations, such as self organized systems, alien inoculation
(panspermia), and the many many different variations of creationism. <snip>
and that is good enough. She explains the strategy of ID by explaining the
wedge strategy. What's your point? <snip> Johnson is indeed arguing for the
wedge strategy.

Scott says he is. You say he is. What's the problem?

 

 

Me:

 

Ted and I have already addressed this misconception of her argument and my
criticism. To reiterate: Scott claimed that Phil Johnson was guilty of a
'false dilemma' or 'false alternative' as are many other folks.  This false
dilemma is claimed to show up explicitly in Phil Johnson's wedge strategy.
However, this claim of Scott's is erroneous for two reasons.  First of all,
and most importantly, part of Phil Johnson's work is arguing for this very
conclusion. He argues for the fact that the only two viable options are
evolution or creation.  For him to commit a false alternative fallacy, he
would have to wrongly assume that these are the only two options.  Debates
can be won by not leaving all relevant options on the table.  But not only
does Phil Johnson not assume this alternative, this is the very thing he is
trying to convince people of.  From what I can recall of the wedge strategy
is just this: to give rational evidence and argument for the fact that
evolution and creation are the only two viable options.  Perhaps he is
wrong, but he would have to be interacted with regarding the evidence and
arguments he gives for this conclusion; simply crying 'false alternative' is
a straw man as strawy as they come.  But given the fact that I became
convinced half way through the talk that Scott was primarily interested in
holding an evolutionary pep rally instead of giving a solid argument, this
was not surprising to me. 

 

Secondly, noting other 'logical possibilities' does not entail a 'false
alternative' as long as the participants in a discussion are only interested
in the proposed limited options.  In fact, this is almost always the way
discussion and argument works.  The historical and cultural context of this
broad debate very naturally limits the two options to creationism and
evolution.  Just because anther option might be a logical possibility does
not mean that this option is probable or interesting for any given group of
people.  

 

 

Michel Previously Wrote:

 

> But in any case, Scott goes on and concludes with an analysis explaining 

> why ID gets the categories confused: what ID and associates fail to 

> recognize is the distinction between Methodological Materialism and 

> Philosophical Materialism.  Science is all about Methodological 

> Materialism and not about Philosophical Materialism at all.  

 

 

John Writes:

 

This is not what Scott said. As I've said above, she mentioned that
according to ID there are only two explanations for the origins of modern
life: evolution and creationism. She argues there are many many more
possible explanations. So, demonstrating evolution is false does not
demonstrate creationism is true. ID supporters pretend evolution is the only
explanation for the origins of modern life in the natural realm. They then
try to attack and disprove evolution to prove a supernatural origin of life.
This is a flawed strategy, because there can be many more natural
explanations other than evolution. Lamarckism, for example, was one such
alternative explanation.

This idea has been proven wrong, but it was not a supernatural one.

 

 

Me:

 

I think you are confusing two things that Scott herself kept separate.
Distinguishing between Philosophical and Methodological Naturalism was a
very separate and clearly articulated point.  In fact, I think it would be a
very fruitful point to make.  I think this is an important distinction, and
much care needs to be taken in understanding the difference between these to
stances.  The problem however, is that Scott was trying to show that
limiting the discussion in the classroom to the physical world of scientific
study is in no way meant to deny the existence of God.  She said that
Christians were still allowed to believe in God and that a purely
Methodological Naturalism does not entail a Philosophical Naturalism.  

 

Now, much could be said about this distinction, but none of it is really
needed since Scott went on and presented not a thesis of Methodological
Naturalism, but rather a thesis of robust Philosophical Naturalism.
Therefore, her argument did not only not work, she fails precisely where she
claims to win.  Scott agrees that it is very important to NOT be a
Philosophical Naturalist; to do that would to embrace assumptions
antithetical to a theistic worldview.  And then she goes on and demonstrates
that she demands nothing short of a Philosophical Naturalism in the science
classroom-scientism 101 of the beastly and tyrannical kind.   

 

 

Michael Originally Wrote:

 

> And if there are any doubts in your mind about this, let me tell you what 

> happened after.  In the brief question and answer period that followed,
one 

> gentleman posed a question regarding the mystery of how human psychology
and 

> the physical body inter-relate-no doubt a question generated by the 

> Philosophical Materialist thesis asserted by Scott. Scott's response was 

> quick, resolved, and emphatic: There is nothing mystical or mysterious
about 

> the mind.  Period.  Scott admitted that some people like to say that the
mind 

> is mysterious, but this is not true. The Mind can be studied entirely
within 

> the methodology of science.

 

 

John Writes:

 

Indeed. And there is nothing wrong with this statement. The human mind is
routinely studied scientifically, without a need for the paranormal.

 

Me:

This is not my argument. Methodological Naturalism is naturalism 'only in
practice.' For the sake of a limiting methodology, we practically 'assume'
the only items of interest to be those items of physical science.  When we
rule out paranormal or normal non-physical causes or explanations (such as
experience), this makes us work hard at finding as many physical, scientific
explanations as possible; it keeps us honest and within the sphere of
physical models. Since this sort of naturalism is only methodological, we
can put up our hands and reference non-physical entities or causation at
anytime we feel it is necessary.  

 

However, Philosophical Naturalism is the thesis that all there is in the
world to know can be fully knowable via Naturalistic explanation.  There is
nothing in the world that does not permit scientific understanding.  This is
why Scott shunned the idea that there was anything we "just can't know" via
science.  This is what was so important about how she answered the question
regarding the mystery of the human mind.  She was clear that the mind is not
mysterious; there is nothing about the mind that cannot be understood
through science and natural, physical explanation.  This is an explicit and
clear statement of what is called Philosophical Materialism, or to use her
terminology, Philosophical Naturalism.  When the mystery of the Mind is
proposed, of essential reference is not just the nervous system and neurons,
but human experience, subjectivity, individuality, intentionality along with
those items of reality that seem to attach themselves to all this, such as
beauty, love, morality, and 'meaning.'  All of these things, according to
Philosophical Materialism, can be fully explained, and therefore 'reduced'
to physical description via scientific explanation.  This is a point of view
at war with a Christian view and even plain old folk-traditional thought.

 

I don't think the reasons Scott would make this kind of mistake are
difficult to imagine, and it did seem as though she was confusing "natural
world" with "physically explainable world."  But regardless, she did reveal
that her paradigm was reductionistic, begging the very question she was
attempting to answer regarding the relationship between theism and the
science classroom. 

 

 

John Writes:

 

> There is no conspiracy!

 

 

Me:

 

Correct.  Just good old institutional politics. 

 

Thanks!

Michael Metzer

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051107/ba36f145/attachment-0001.htm