<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Ted,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thanks for the vigorous response. Your efforts to get us back on the
original track might be working!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Regarding a discussion of Creation Science, You Write:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>My position is that all "coherent" theories that illuminate
this discussion, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>whether minority theories or not, or from other cultures or religious <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>traditions or not, should be considered. A statement like this leads
to endless <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>complexity, it appears. I should not be surprised.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Perhaps it would be wise to stick to a focused debate about whether <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Intelligent Design and/or Creationism are "scientific
theories" and if so, what <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>theories among all the possible on this subject should then be included
in a science <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>classroom? Once philosophers wade into the deep, deep stormy waters of
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>speculative theology, ….<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I do not think the discussion waters have gotten as murky and deep as
you propose. Perhaps they might get to this condition, but I think the issues
have been carefully narrowed so far. But I confess that we have not been
directly addressing Eugenie Scott’s presentation, or your previous
discussions of what comprises true science. I am partly to blame for this
since I jumped into the middle of this broader discussion. Things somehow got
very epistemological instead of cosmological! <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I don’t think our discussions of theism and epistemology have
been the result of speculate theology. As I already conceded to Joe, I’m
skeptical of the ability of Natural Theology to get us very far and I’m
firmly grounded in what I take to be Special Revelation. The range of analysis
and argument surrounding the epistemological questions Joe has raised are
actually fairly narrow. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I’m also not sure I’m happy including any theory to the
discussion just because it is “coherent.” It would seem that a theory
would have to have more going for it than that.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>II.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Ted Wrote: It seems in your comment on top above you are asserting I
was making an <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>argument I was not making in my response to your referencing of
Plantinga. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me: You only included the second half of my argument. I was responding
to your following statements:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“But to assert that belief in God is "something immediately
produced ‘because’<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> of the ‘evidence’ presented to the senses of the
complexity and beauty of <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>the world" is <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>quite simply a factually
incorrect statement, if applied to all <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>human beings, at least if belief in a
monotheistic God</span></font></b> who created the universe <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>is the sort of God referred to.” <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In reply to this I wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“You are correct; if there was a properly functioning belief
producing<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>mechanism (undamaged) in each and every human being that triggered the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>belief in an Almighty Creator upon the 'evidence' of the beauty and
grandeur<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>of 'creation,' then each and every human being would be a monotheist.
But<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>of course, we know this is not true. <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>But
the fact that there is therefore<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:bold'>no such belief forming mechanism is
not the only alternative</span></font></b>.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In other words, Plantinga’s epistemology is not “quite
simply a factually incorrect statement if applied to all human beings.”
This is because the distinction between proper and improper functioning is
crucial to his epistemology. If there was not importance given to improper
functioning, then I would agree with your assertion. But this is a wrong
assumption. Further, Plantinga’s account is not only a logical possibility;
it looks a lot like the traditional Abrahamic religions, thus giving it greater
relevance to the broader discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>III.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>You Wrote: If it can be shown that the "Classical Christian
view" on Intelligent <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Design/Creationism is a "scientific" view, it deserves
consideration in a science classroom, along with any other views on this
subject that have the appropriate merit as <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"scientific" theories. …My point, rephrased, is that
if we are going to discuss with an open mind all the options that are tenable
relating to "science" for Intelligent Design <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>and/or Creationism in science classrooms, then all tenable
religious/spiritual <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>views or other sorts of views (aliens genetically engineering of human <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>intelligence: the Raelians) on this subject should be presented and
debated for their <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"scientific" merit.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me: I think Joe has made some good distinctions on this subject
already. But I would like to add the fact that there should be room in a
science class to discuss topics that can have an informative role in how the
direction that scientific creativity goes. But it is not clear what your take
on this is: Is it important that the Christian View be inherently
‘scientific’ or is it sufficient that the Christian View be merely
“tenable” and “relating to science?” <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> If you think that the earth is 6000 years old, this is going to inform
how Jane, a geologist, approaches her hypothesis formation. You think it will
inform Jane to Jane’s harm; but if it was true, it would inform Jane to Jane’s
benefit. In the same way, if Creationism is true, then scientists are going to
have to be prepared for a ‘paradigm shift’ if they wish to move
forward with regard to some current evolutionary paradoxes, gaps, problems,
etc. If Creationism was true, and if most scientists were laboring with a good
education on just how this could possibly impact their research, then this
paradigm shift would be come about with much less pain. Perhaps this is the
only way it could come about at all. So with all this in consideration, it
would not seem silly to include some subject matter on different metaphysical
frameworks in the science classroom. I think there are other complicated
factors like this, but this one example should suffice for now. Because of
this, I don’t think it is necessary to call Creationism a
‘science,’ as such, out side of its potentially potent ability to
inform scientific hypothesis formation—just as does the broader
evolutionary narrative that most scientists currently assume. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>IV.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>You Wrote: I think the claim that we should limit our options regarding
what theories <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>may have scientific merit, that renders them suitable for science
classrooms, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>for Intelligent Design/Creationism, a "suspicious"
suggestion, not appropriate <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>for the investigation of the truth without preconceived biases
antithetical to <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>the scientific method…To say the alternatives are "atheism
or evolution" might make a great sound bite, and fire up the faithful, but
it is a false dilemma. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me: I do not believe this addresses my argument thus far. Scott
asserted this false dilemma with regard to Phil Johnson, but I pointed out that
Phil Johnson furthers arguments for the very dilemma in question. A false
dilemma only comes about when someone assumes there can only be two possible
options. But if the fact that there are only two possible options is the
conclusion of a sustained argument, then the opponent needs to then address the
sustained argument. The charge of ‘false dilemma’ would not be an
appropriate response. Further, as I previously noted, there is nothing
inherently wrong with argumentative and social context limiting the possible
options. Other options might be ‘logically possible’ or perhaps
‘coherent,’ but that does not mean that they are going to be sufficiently
plausible for the audience in view. The very issue we are discussing now has a
2500 year history, and during this time ‘theism’ versus some form
of ‘evolution’ have been dominant counter proposals. It would make
sense therefore to continue the discussion in this vein, albeit leaving the
‘logical options’ open to someone who thinks they can give reasons
for a plausible or interesting third option. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>V.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>You Wrote: What I mean is that there are elements of the
social/political forces at play <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:place>
attempting to promote Intelligent Design/Creationism being taught <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>in science classrooms in the context of specific interpretations of the
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Christian Religion that block having the discussion broadened to
include all <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>theories that impact this subject. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me: Yes, sorry I misunderstood your point originally. And I agree with
this point. I believe this is a social/political issue. However, I do not
think that Evolutionary assumptions are immune to this either. You say that many
people believe in a Christian God. Well, if many people also came to believe
that this not only has scientific import but very likely decreases the
plausibility of evolution, then what would be the problem? The problem would
be non-theists trying to get their evolutionary assumptions back into, or more
strongly rooted in, the classroom; and there would be many social/political
forces at play. Right?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thanks!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael Metzler<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>