Plantinga's argument for Design.

[seer]

Nope.

More unfounded slander...

[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.

[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."

[OingoBoingo]

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

Nope.

[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.

[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?

[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]

Surely, everyone has the right to grow their views. When a philosopher expresses tired skepticism of evolution to a Christian audience but then changes his mind, he's obligated to explain what convinced him otherwise for the benefit or those he misled. That's common courtesy and an expression of humility. I haven't seen that is all I'm saying. If you can link to that, I'll read it.

What are you talking about? And don't try and turn it on me whag. I don't know what Plantinga wrote or didn't write over the years, whether he modified his views or not. You are the one making the accusation. Again you are accusing him of misleading - prove it!

Incorrect. See title of thread and subsequent discussion of teleology between Carrikature and OB. This is entirely on topic and not ad hom.

And yes it would behoove you to read the context of that essay before we have meaningful discussion of it. If you don't want to know the facts of the Dover trial, that's okay, but there can be no coherent discussion between us without you understanding the basis of the tension between ID and ToE. That would be as exasperating as OB sparring with Shuny who clearly did not understand the context of the argument he criticized. Don't make the same mistake as Shuny.

Whag, who was the first one to bring in the Dover case?

[shunyadragon]

let's get back to Plantinga. Plantinga has demonstrated his hostility toward the scientific Theory of Evolution here, and has previously cited his negative view of Methodological Naturalism, and then he claims to use evolution to justify 'design.' There is a contradiction here.

The problem with the Dover trail is that those who proposed teaching ID, did the same thing. No, I have not been able to find any retraction or change by Plantinga concerning his essay on the Dover trial result. He most definitely has used strong Creationist language in the past.

The Grand Evolutionary Myth

Since I have dealt with this example elsewhere (in the essays referred to in footnote 3) I can be brief here. Consider the Grand Evolutionary Myth (GEM). According to this story, organic life somehow arose from non-living matter by way of purely natural means and by virtue of the workings of the fundamental regularities of physics and chemistry. Once life began, all the vast profusion of contemporary flora and fauna arose from those early ancestors by way of common descent. The enormous contemporary variety of life arose, basically, through natural selection operating on such sources of genetic variability as random genetic mutation, genetic drift and the like. I call this story a myth not because I do not believe it (although I do not believe it) but because it plays a certain kind of quasireligious role in contemporary culture. It is a shared way of understanding ourselves at the deep level of religion, a deep interpretation of ourselves to ourselves, a way of telling us why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going.

It is abundantly clear here that Plantinga does not support the academic scientific Theory of Evolution.

[seer]

Of course he did. He does this sort of thing a lot around here. When you call him on it he does a sort of big-eyed, "oh no, did I do that?" Then when that doesn't work he points out that he's allowed to do anything he can to win a debate because of the forums guidelines. Did you see the obvious bait he posted above? I respect that. Plantinga's views are difficult to defend in light of what went down in Dover. LOL. How can anyone post drivel like that with a serious face.

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...

[whag]

Good, but the fact is I don't know anyone whose views don't change over time as he gets more info. Do you? That should be held against Plantingar anyone else.

Surely, everyone has the right to grow their views. When a philosopher expresses tired skepticism of evolution to a Christian audience but then changes his mind, he's obligated to explain what convinced him otherwise for the benefit or those he misled. That's common courtesy and an expression of humility. I haven't seen that is all I'm saying. If you can link to that, I'll read it.

Ok, so you come into this thread questioning Plantinga's understanding or truthfulness but we can't discuss it until I read the entire Dover opinion? Really whag? OingoBoingo was correct - you just wanted to poison the well. Bad form old man...

Incorrect. See title of thread and subsequent discussion of teleology between Carrikature and OB. This is entirely on topic and not ad hom.

And yes it would behoove you to read the context of that essay before we have meaningful discussion of it. If you don't want to know the facts of the Dover trial, that's okay, but there can be no coherent discussion between us without you understanding the basis of the tension between ID and ToE. That would be as exasperating as OB sparring with Shuny who clearly did not understand the context of the argument he criticized. Don't make the same mistake as Shuny.

[OingoBoingo]

It does. because Plantinga, "Proper functioning requires design; but the only plausible designer for us human beings is God." Plantinga tries to misuse science in his papers to justify 'design,' which is the same problem in the Dover case. Science cannot be used to justify ID.

Nope. You still don't understand his argument.

[shunyadragon]

Did you read Plantinga's response? What was so out of bounds? The fact is whag, you had no reason to attack Plantinga's character. And none of this changes the fact that Shuny is once again clueless...

Still no intelligent response with citations, just a name calling rant.

[OingoBoingo]

Ok, so you come into this thread questioning Plantinga's understanding or truthfulness but we can't discuss it until I read the entire Dover opinion? Really whag? OingoBoingo was correct - you just wanted to poison the well. Bad form old man...

Of course he did. He does this sort of thing a lot around here. When you call him on it he does a sort of big-eyed, "oh no, did I do that?" Then when that doesn't work he points out that he's allowed to do anything he can to win a debate because of the forums guidelines. Did you see the obvious bait he posted above? I respect that. Plantinga's views are difficult to defend in light of what went down in Dover. LOL. How can anyone post drivel like that with a serious face.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the discussion taking place here. Nothing in your Discovery link has anything to do with Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism or 'proper function', or even his theory of warrant.

It does. because Plantinga, "Proper functioning requires design; but the only plausible designer for us human beings is God." Plantinga tries to misuse science in his papers to justify 'design,' which is the same problem in the Dover case. Science cannot be used to justify ID.