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

[Michael]

John:

- Johnson's argument is that evolution and creation are the only two
possible explanations for the origins of modern lifeforms

- Scott argumentatively addressed this argument by listing at least one
other possible explanation:

self-organization

- The possible explanations for the origins of modern lifeforms at least
include evolution, creation, and self-organization

- Johnson is guilty of a false alternative

 

Do you agree Lamarckism vs. creation would be a false dichotomy in 1809? If
so, does it not follow that evolution vs. creation is a false dichotomy in
2005?

 

Me:

Johnson argues FOR this alternative. I'd assume Johnson would have addressed
other proposed possibilities in his argument, at least implicitly. What else
would he have been arguing about?  Whatever Johnson's arguments are, we know
that Scott did not deal with them; she merely cried "false alternative" and
listed other logical possibilities (which I believe included ancient Hindu
metaphysics, and all-is-one). 

 

Interesting to note: you yourself have been repeatedly setting up an
either/or alternative throughout this discussion. You want to distinguish
between normal and 'paranormal' origins; perhaps then Scott would say you
are presenting a false alternative here.  Perhaps there is a form of origins
that is neither normal or paranormal as you would define those terms.
Perhaps Johnson and you are actually in a fair amount of agreement here, and
perhaps Johnson would love to simply broaden the category of "evolution" to
include the logical possibility of self-organization. In fact, I know I
would.

 

Two important things however:  

 

First, my other consideration regarding limiting ourselves to culturally
relevant or intuitively or evidentially plausible options makes all of this
moot. A false alternative claim is a bit silly given the concerns of most
the people even watching the broad cultural debate.  Most of us are either
traditional theists or traditional evolutionists; the theistic evolutionary
position I know is something Johnson gives argumentative time on.  And I
don't buy this as a legitimate conceptual option either if the entire
relevant context is considered (it works fine in the abstract). Anyway,
you've dropped this issue completely.

 

Second, a far more important criticism I offered Scott has also been
dropped: she was caught red handed failing her own test; she could not see
her own latent reductionism and hence her non-scientific philosophical
naturalism that Christians are naturally repelled by.  

 

Anyhow, for your further philosophical fun, here's a definition of the
logical fallacy of 'false alternative':

 

"Assuming that only one alternative exists in a given situation, when in
fact, other and usually more fundamental alternatives also exist."

 

The first definition I found on the web doing a quick search was authored by
Doug Wilson (no joke!), so I thought out of deference to some of our
cultural sensitivities I'd look for another definition, which I have just
quoted.  Now look at the definition above and note two things.  First, one
must ASSUME only one alternative exists.  But I've argued Johnson did not
assume; he presented this as a conclusion of his ARGUMENT.  Second, note the
"usually more fundamental" phrase; I would think this is an explicit
reference to my point regarding plausibility versus logical possibility.

 

As for your last question, I don't know the history that well. However, if
Lamarkianism was the only plausible scientific hypothesis and/or relevantly
interesting hypothesis for western culture at the time, then there would be
no false alternative fallacy behind the intuitive impulse of limiting the
debate to Lamarkianism and Creationism.  There is actually a bit of
interesting work that Morris has done in "Long War Against God," and I
personally like the analysis of the history of western thought as that
between materialism and theism, which seems to play itself out from within
an 'evolutionary' hypothesis broadly construed versus creationism. But all
that is just for your information. 

 

Thanks!

Michael Metzler

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051109/6ddb21dc/attachment-0001.htm