<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="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)">
<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'>John:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In this paragraph you are first saying giving examples of bad creation
science is legitimate, and then, in the next sentence, suggesting the very same
thing is not legitimate.<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'>No, I said they ‘can be’ legitimate. Sometimes yes,
sometimes no. I wrote: “But this is only the case if it is done in a
clearly argumentative way; Scott's method was purely rhetorical.” <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'>John:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Don't get emotional about people in the audience laughing with examples
of creation science or about assumed suggestions of imbecility. <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'>Not emotional at all. I was making a point about an objective feature
of Scott’s rhetoric.<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'>John:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>There are some PhD scientists sympathetic to creation science, but very
few of them actually do creation research. None of them have produced valid
research results.<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'>The nature of my criticism of Scott does not address the statistics on
how many brilliant PhD scientists who do creation research is not. This is an
empirical claim I was not addressing, and it was a claim that Scott did nothing
to argumentatively settle either way. <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'>John:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>False. The moths spend their time on trunks, branches, and trunk/branch
joints. If the moths rest more commonly under branches, this would only require
an adjustment of selection coefficients, but doesn't change the main idea of
differential bird predation. <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'>But Scott just laughed at a periphery here; your analysis suggests that
there is a potentially legitimate concern or argument on the part of the
Creationist, but also a legitimate argument against them here. This was not
Scott’s method; you exceed Scott’s argumentative righteousness. <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 Originally Wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>My point was that the examples Scott gave were not found within
publications that were necessarily posing as scientific, academic journals.<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'>John Writes In Response:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>That would be because there is no creationist science to be found in
true academic journals.<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 think we have lost my original point here.<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'>John:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Scott is wrong because what she says goes against the work of Johnson?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>He is wrong. There are more than two viable options. <snip><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Now you have me confused. In the same sentence you are saying Johnson
is not using the flawed strategy, but also trying to convince people of that
strategy. <snip> Scott did not just cry 'false alternative'. She explained
why it was so.<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’m not sure how this addressed my argument regarding Phil
Johnson, his wedge strategy, and the claim of false alternative. Scott did
just cry ‘false alternative;’ she did so numerous times. Instead
of addressing each time, I simply addressed what she said about Phil Johnson.
She simply stated that Phil Johnson asserts a wedge between Evolution and
Creation; Creation must be true since Evolution is false. However, this could
only be a ‘false alternative’ fallacy if it was a one step
argument. Johnson would just have to assert (as Scott implies he does) that
the true explanation of origins has to be either Evolution or Creation as a
starting premise or a starting assumption, and then proceed to ‘argue’
for the fact that Evolution is false, which then gives you the conclusion of
Creation. This would be committing a false alternative fallacy. But this is
not, from what I remember, Johnson’s argument. Johnson’s argument
is two stepped. First he argues for, he does not assume, the fact that we have
really only two options before us. And further, he argues for the fact that
these really are two separate options; not agreeing with Donovan, he argues for
the fact that you can’t be an Evolutionist and a Creationist at the same
time. Once he has argued for this conclusion (as I recollect) he then proceeds
to argue for the fact that Evolution is false. 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. <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'>Michael Previously Wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> In fact, this is almost always the way discussion<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>and argument works. The <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> historical and cultural context of this broad debate<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>very naturally limits <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> the two options to creationism and evolution.<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'>John Writes In Response:<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 see why that would be true. Can you explain?<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'>The important distinction here is between logical possibility and
probably possibility, or conceivable possibility or plausible possibility.
Only philosophers care about all the different possible worlds one can conceive
of. Scientists only care about plausible worlds; in other words, they want to
test hypotheses that they think just might end up being true. In the case of a
broad cultural and political debate about origins, it makes no sense to
multiple the logically possible origins of man; rather, one would propose those
logically possible origins that also seem relevant, or plausible, or probable.
If Scott cries, “Ah, false alternative, there is a third option: all is
an allusion; there really isn’t a world that involved; solipsism just
might be true.” The reasonable American scientist/agnostic should say,
What?! I don’t care about the logical possibility of solipsism, I want
to test the two PLAUSIBLE OR RELEVANT OR DISPUTED hypothesis. I want to debate
what the scientific community finds relevant or plausible. There is no false
alternative here. This is the way all debates or experimentation go: we rule
out many implausible logical possibilities at the start for productivity and
efficiency; in part it is due to lack of creativity or interest in a certain
path of inquiry or hypothesis formation. <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'>PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM & METHEDOLOGICAL NATURALISM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>John Writes:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Agreed. Why is that a problem? <snip><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Were we even attending the same lecture? I don't know where you are
getting this from. This is not what she said. She said science operates in the
natural world and this is independent of a person's spiritual life.
<snip> Science does not deal in the paranormal. However, science
routinely DOES deal with normal non-physical causes. I give you Economics,
Sociology, Psychology, Behavioral Ecology,... <snip> How could you ever
know that you can never know something?<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'>John Goes On And Quotes What I Originally Wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“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.”<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'>John Continues and Writes In Response:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The concepts you list here are routinely scientifically studied in the
fields I listed above.<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'>It is evident that you have not grasped the real difference between
Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism. This is a common problem for
scientists, since it is the fuzzy acceptance of Philosophical Naturalism in the
name of Methodological Naturalism that Analytic Philosophers find important to
illuminate and criticize. All of the above is answered by pointing out the
fact that although certain aspects of ‘mind’ can be the subject of
scientific explanation, there are other aspects, such as subjective
consciousness, that in principle cannot be; for example, the scientist
can’t get what it is like to look at a test tube in his test tube. Scott
was clear that you can. I’m not asserting anything uncommon to current
academic discussion in philosophy. <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=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>