Plantinga's argument for Design.

[OingoBoingo]

Yes, and now Shuny is referencing the Dover case. I'm not sure if he did before since I have him on ignore. Sad really...

He mentioned it once before, but it was in a hilarious attempt to rebuff correction that Carrikature was offering.

As cited 'proper function' allows only theism, and design is necessary. His misrepresentation of Natural Evolution as understood by science to justify the necessity of design remains the elephant in the room you are ignoring.

Mundane examples of 'engineering' are bogus and not applicable to either the theory of evolution, nor Creation by God. Plantinga asserts this as it applies to the necessity of God being an engineer and designer.

As cited, 'proper function' entails design. That's it. For humans to have proper function requires them to have a designer. Plantinga calls that designer 'God'. You would call that designer "a Source some call god(s)". Naturalists, according to Plantinga, would call that designer 'extraterrestrials'. Examples of engineering are actually extremely applicable to creation a la ID. Designer=engineer. They're more or less synonymous.

Not applicable, nor is it objectively falsifiable as far as the scientific academics in the Theory of Evolution. I will cite the Dover trial results to document this.

[seer]

He mentioned it once before, but it was in a hilarious attempt to rebuff correction that Carrikature was offering.

Ok, did he ever show where in the Dover trial Plantinga did this great evil?

[shunyadragon]

Don't make the same mistake as Shuny.

What mistake is this? I have extensively read and cited Plantinga in full quotes from his different sources. I have stated clear my opposition to Plantinga, and cited a reputable critic Tom O'Conner, and I will cite more. Actually there was no objection nor counter argument to my citation of Tim O'Conner.

PLease explain where I misrepresented or misquoted Plantinga, with citations. I have not seen anyone else quote Plantinga more then I.

[OingoBoingo]

Ok, did he ever show where in the Dover trial Plantinga did this great evil?

Nope.

[shunyadragon]

He mentioned it once before, but it was in a hilarious attempt to rebuff correction that Carrikature was offering.

I responded to that issue concerning the assertion without references that Plantinga's 'proper function' only entails desgn, but my citation Plantinga's own words requires design, and the only plausible designer is God.

"Proper functioning requires design; but the only plausible designer for us human beings is God."

[whag]

He mentioned it once before, but it was in a hilarious attempt to rebuff correction that Carrikature was offering.

I happen to agree with you that Shuny started on the wrong foot and misunderstood Plantinga in that context. You said many times that you demonstrated that, and also complained of being exasperated by having to repeat yourself.

Now that the discussion has turned to teleology, we can now discuss Plantinga's belief that teleological design concepts are robust enough to qualify as "science," which Plantinga, as recently as 2006, thinks is true. Surely you know how specious that view is and how thoroughly it's been refuted.

Any subsequent writings of Plantinga's indicating a change of heart would be relevant. Until then, I can only assume he holds to the belief that design, being science, can be taught.

[seer]

Nope.

More unfounded slander...

[seer]

Now that the discussion has turned to teleology, we can now discuss Plantinga's belief that teleological design concepts are robust enough to qualify as "science," which Plantinga, as recently as 2006, thinks is true. Surely you know how specious that view is and how thoroughly it's been refuted.

I guess you would have to first define science.

[shunyadragon]

Ok, did he ever show where in the Dover trial Plantinga did this great evil?

The problem is Both the ID proponents in Dover, and Plantinga advocated ID as being supported by science, and failed. Besides Plantinga supported the ID proponents in the Dover case. In the trial the ID proponents had their opportunity to present their case, most did not show up, what did failed miserably. The scientists on the other hand presented an extensive well documented case that ID is not science, but a religious Creationist view and argument. The separation of church and state ruling that religion not be taught in the science class prevailed.

[OingoBoingo]

I responded to that issue concerning the assertion without references that Plantinga's 'proper function' only entails desgn, but my citation Plantinga's own words requires design, and the only plausible designer is God.

shunyadragon, do you believe that organs like the mind have proper function?

[whag]

What mistake is this? I have extensively read and cited Plantinga in full quotes from his different sources. I have stated clear my opposition to Plantinga, and cited a reputable critic Tom O'Conner, and I will cite more. Actually there was no objection nor counter argument to my citation of Tim O'Conner.

PLease explain where I misrepresented or misquoted Plantinga, with citations. I have not seen anyone else quote Plantinga more then I.

It was obvious you did not read Plantinga's books but culled information from 2nd hand sources. This was a costly mistake and stupid because Plantinga's criticism of evolution and support for DI is well established without your needing to quote from books you never read.

You made it way harder for yourself than you needed to.

[whag]

I guess you would have to first define science.

First, you have to know about the trial, in particular how it began and developed. Is 137 pages too long for you?

[shunyadragon]

shunyadragon, do you believe that organs like the mind have proper function?

I believe organs like the brain evolved naturally to the present physical and behavioral nature of being human. (Universally accepted view by science.) The mind is naturally a product of our brain

The mind is not an organ. The belief in 'proper function' is Plantinga's view, and a product of his belief in Calvinist Reformed Epistemology.

Spiritually I believe the soul is independent of the Brain and the mind.

[seer]

First, you have to know about the trial, in particular how it began and developed. Is 137 pages too long for you?

Yep, not for right now. Really whag, how hard is it for you just to tell us all where Plantinga was so off base. There has to be one glaring error we could discuss. BTW - even though I did not read the opinion I did follow the trial, as did many Christians.

[shunyadragon]

It was obvious you did not read Plantinga's books but culled information from 2nd hand sources. This was a costly mistake and stupid because Plantinga's criticism of evolution and support for DI is well established without your needing to quote from books you never read.

You made it way harder for yourself than you needed to.

Still no direct reference to any mistakes, nor references by Plantinga to justify your claim. I have cited a number of sources directly quoting Plantinga, others have not, and by the way you have not in documenting my mistakes. My critique of Plantinga has never changed.

Still waiting . . .