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

[Michael]

I Previously Wrote:

 

> To critique Johnson, one must show why his arguments for the fact that 

> Evolution and Creation are the only two options and why they are 

> mutually exclusive.  Simply asserting that Johnson starts off with a 

> false alternative doesn't deal with his argument. It is a straw man.  

> And this is precisely what Scott did.

 

John Writes:

 

This is not true. Scott has mentioned potential alternative natural
scientific explanations of the origins of modern lifeforms in her
presentation. One of those she mentioned was the idea of self-organizing
systems. Another natural alternative is Kimura's neutral theory. Neither
self-organizing systems, nor neutral theory, involves the paranormal.

 

Me:

My argument stands firm.  You cannot have it both ways here.  Either Scott
argumentatively addressed Johnson's argument that Evolution and Creation are
the only two options or Johnson is guilty is of a false alternative.  Both
cannot be true at the same time.  I feel like I have done more explaining of
my arguments and Scott's own distinctions (e.g. two kinds of naturalism)
than I have answered legitimate challenges, so I'm fine ending this line of
discussion here for now.

 

Thanks

Michael Metzler

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051109/f27ef6fa/attachment.htm