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

[Michael]

Bob Dickow wrote:

 

Did Eugenie Scott point out that at the most general level the entire
Creation Science argument is based on a fairly clear non-sequitur in
reasoning? The observation of complex systems or patterns is not a logical
basis for concluding the involvement of an intelligent creator in that
object, nor does it imply the existence of such a creator or being. This
does not belie that God exists. Of course God exists. But still the logical
connection above is fallacious. 

 

Me:

Yes, Scott made a similar assertion.  Scott also pointed out that this was
scientific orthodoxy since William Paley's 1802 publication called "Natural
Theology," and that Darwin held to just this view until he thought he found
another possible alternative explanation.  Of course, Kant showed that the
argument doesn't work very well as a deductive argument (fairing as well as
most deductive arguments of this kind). However, as a more subtle inductive
matter, the question of whether or not this sort of inference is a non
sequitur is just one of the issue of contemporary debate.  A 'logical basis'
usually looks a bit different from an 'implication.'  As someone like Alvin
Plantinga would point out however, another option would be to see belief in
God as properly basic: something immediately produced 'because' of the
'evidence' presented to the senses of the complexity and beauty of the
world, but not discursively 'based upon' propositional evidence derived from
such experience. I'm sure, Bob, that you don't mean that there is no
'logical connection' at all between the idea of a Creator God and the
'design' features of the world..

 

Michael Metzler 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051013/d2d1a25f/attachment.htm