<DIV>>> John: </DIV>
<DIV>>> - Johnson's argument is that evolution and creation </DIV>
<DIV>>> are the only two possible explanations for the </DIV>
<DIV>>> origins of modern lifeforms </DIV>
<DIV>>> - Scott argumentatively addressed this argument by </DIV>
<DIV>>> listing at least one other possible explanation: </DIV>
<DIV>>> self-organization </DIV>
<DIV>>> - The possible explanations for the origins of modern </DIV>
<DIV>>> lifeforms at least include evolution, creation, and </DIV>
<DIV>>> self-organization </DIV>
<DIV>>> - Johnson is guilty of a false alternative </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> Me: </DIV>
<DIV>> Johnson argues FOR this alternative. I'd assume </DIV>
<DIV>> Johnson would have addressed other proposed </DIV>
<DIV>> possibilities in his argument, at least implicitly. </DIV>
<DIV>> What else would he have been arguing about? Whatever </DIV>
<DIV>> Johnson's arguments are, we know that Scott did not </DIV>
<DIV>> deal with them; she merely cried "false alternative" </DIV>
<DIV>> and listed other logical possibilities (which I </DIV>
<DIV>> believe included ancient Hindu metaphysics, and > all-is-one). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your willingness to blindly accept the authority of Johnson is remarkable, and a little scary. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>> Do you agree Lamarckism vs. creation would be a </DIV>
<DIV>>> false dichotomy in 1809? If so, does it not follow </DIV>
<DIV>>> that evolution vs. creation is a false dichotomy in </DIV>
<DIV>>> 2005? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> As for your last question, I don't know the history </DIV>
<DIV>> that well. However, if Lamarkianism was the only </DIV>
<DIV>> plausible scientific hypothesis and/or relevantly </DIV>
<DIV>> interesting hypothesis for western culture at the </DIV>
<DIV>> time, then there would be no false alternative </DIV>
<DIV>> fallacy behind the intuitive impulse of limiting the </DIV>
<DIV>> debate to Lamarkianism and Creationism. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, by that logic, Darwin actually proved creationism by publishing The Origin of Species, because it disproved Lamarckism. Agreed? </DIV><p>__________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com