<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;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
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'>- Johnson's argument is that evolution and creation are the only two
possible explanations for the origins of modern lifeforms<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>- Scott argumentatively addressed this argument by listing at least one
other possible explanation:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>self-organization<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>- The possible explanations for the origins of modern lifeforms at
least include evolution, creation, and self-organization<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>- Johnson is guilty of a false alternative<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'>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?<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'>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). <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'>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.<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'>Two important things however: <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'>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.<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'>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. <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'>Anyhow, for your further philosophical fun, here’s a definition
of the logical fallacy of ‘false alternative’:<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'>“Assuming that only one alternative exists in a given situation,
when in fact, other and usually more fundamental alternatives also exist.”<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'>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.<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'>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. <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>
</div>
</body>
</html>