Plantinga's argument for Design.

[OingoBoingo]

I have basically have given my case of the critique of Plantinga's beliefs in 'proper function and Warrant.'

(1) Plantinga's 'proper function' requires 'design'

(2) Plantinga believes the only viable 'designer is God.

(3) Plantinga does not support nor believe in the scientific Theory of Evolution.

(4) Plantinga's belief in the Theory of Evolution is not accepted by academic science.

(5) Plantinga does not endorse Methodological Naturalism.

(6) Plantinga believes in the Intelligent Design advocated by the Dover Board of Education and the Discovery Institute.

(7) There is no basis in science for the support of Plantinga's belief in design.'

(8) Plantinga's 'proper function,' proper belief,' and Warrant are based on the Cavinist Reformed Epistemology.

I will continue to cite sources, and pursue this debate. Good well reasoned rebuttals with references, particularly from Plantinga welcome. Name calling, rants and off topic stuff not welcome.

Nope. Still not right. Try again.

[shunyadragon]

I love how you want me to document the mistakes that MaxVel et al have sufficiently pointed out. Perhaps your thirst for documentation should have existed prior to your sloppy OP.

Accusations and not references and documentation, no they were not sufficiently pointed out and without references.

Instead of quoting books you didn't read and the responders owned, all you had to do was read a few damning articles penned by Plantinga himself to make your case. His material on Dover alone would have saved you the trouble and spared you the accusations of quoting from indirect sources and an abstract, which is a synopsis.

There is no indication that the responders opened or read the books. Nothing was cited from these books for me to know they know what they are talking about.

I am glad you agree they are damning and revealing articles 'penned by Plantinga himself to make my case. That is far more then is necessary to make my case.

Example of two issues that I was challenged with early on: (1) Design was not required for Plantanga's argument for 'proper function. I documented this citing Plantinga.
(2) Some claimed Plantinga allowed other plausible options for the source of design. I documented he did not.

Those that challenged me apparently had not read Plantinga's books.

[OingoBoingo]

You appeared confused as to what a human organ.

Oh stop. You know I was using "mind" as a synonym for "brain". I allowed for the change in terminology and you still didn't answer the question.

[OingoBoingo]

Neither Max Vel nor whag cited sources in their accusations. For that matter neither have you.

I haven't cited sources?

[shunyadragon]

He doesn't need to cite you specifically. The whole thread is proof that you don't understand Plantinga's argument. Everyone can see this but you. Doesn't that give you any pause at all?

Neither Max Vel nor whag cited sources in their accusations, nor specifics as to what I do not understand, and so called mistakes. For that matter neither have you.

You appeared confused as to what a human organ.

[OingoBoingo]

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 . . .

He doesn't need to cite you specifically. The whole thread is proof that you don't understand Plantinga's argument. Everyone can see this but you. Doesn't that give you any pause at all?

[whag]

Let's get back to the subject Plantinga. please do not highjack the thread.

Out of 10,000 DIer's 9,999 are creationists. It is too broad a title to be meaningful If anyone including myself believe in a Theistic God are creationists.

The only purpose of referring to the Dover trial, or maybe the Discovery Institute is to demonstrate that ID is not accepted by academic science.

First, you need to respond to the following post:




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 . . .

I love how you want me to document the mistakes that MaxVel et al have sufficiently pointed out. Perhaps your thirst for documentation should have existed prior to your sloppy OP.

Instead of quoting books you didn't read and the responders owned, all you had to do was read a few damning articles penned by Plantinga himself to make your case. His material on Dover alone would have saved you the trouble and spared you the accusations of quoting from indirect sources and an abstract, which is a synopsis.

[OingoBoingo]

I believe organs like the brain evolved naturally to the present physical and behavioral nature of being human. The mind is naturally a product of our brain.

Yeah, you said that already. That doesn't provide an answer to my question though, because a lot of people believe organs "evolve naturally to the present physical and behavioral nature of being human", and also believe that those organs have functional purpose. A lot of people people believe organs "evolve naturally to the present physical and behavioral nature of being human", and also believe that those organs do not have functional purpose. I'm trying to figure out which type of person you think you are.

The debate here is Plantinga's 'proper function,' and not other unnamed anonymous whomever. Let's deal with Plantinga. References from the Calvinist Reformed Epistemology ok, because that is the origin of Plantinga's belief.

There is no such thing as "Plantinga's 'proper function'".

[shunyadragon]

I have basically have given my case of the critique of Plantinga's beliefs in 'proper function and Warrant.'

(1) Plantinga's 'proper function' requires 'design'

(2) Plantinga believes the only viable 'designer is God.

(3) Plantinga does not support nor believe in the scientific Theory of Evolution.

(4) Plantinga's belief in the Theory of Evolution is not accepted by academic science.

(5) Plantinga does not endorse Methodological Naturalism.

(6) Plantinga believes in the Intelligent Design advocated by the Dover Board of Education and the Discovery Institute.

(7) There is no basis in science for the support of Plantinga's belief in design.'

(8) Plantinga's 'proper function,' proper belief,' and Warrant are based on the Cavinist Reformed Epistemology.

I will continue to cite sources, and pursue this debate. Good well reasoned rebuttals with references, particularly from Plantinga welcome. Name calling, rants and off topic stuff not welcome.

[shunyadragon]

That doesn't make sense. I haven't made any statement about all DIs being creationists, though most definitely are. The material the institute has produced is sufficiently wrong-headed that calling them all creationists wouldn't really serve my point in criticizing Plantinga's response to Jones' decision.

The case that the institute made in the trial and Plantinga's hasty response is the context.

Let's get back to the subject Plantinga. please do not highjack the thread.

Out of 10,000 DIer's 9,999 are creationists. It is too broad a title to be meaningful If anyone including myself believe in a Theistic God are creationists.

The only purpose of referring to the Dover trial, or maybe the Discovery Institute is to demonstrate that ID is not accepted by academic science.

First, you need to respond to the following post:

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 . . .

[shunyadragon]

Fine, brain then. Do you believe that organs (like the brain) have proper function?

I believe organs like the brain evolved naturally to the present physical and behavioral nature of being human. The mind is naturally a product of our brain.

No, the belief in proper function is not just Plantinga's view. He may justify his personal belief in proper function on Reformed epistemology, but that has nothing to do with the question.

The debate here is Plantinga's 'proper function,' and not other unnamed anonymous whomever. Let's deal with Plantinga. References from the Calvinist Reformed Epistemology ok, because that is the origin of Plantinga's belief.

[whag]

Perhaps I should if I aim to critique the judge's decision, under the principle that I shouldn't critique something I haven't read. But I'm addressing the claims that you are bringing up - which I've read.

That doesn't make sense. I haven't made any statement about all DIs being creationists, though most definitely are. The material the institute has produced is sufficiently wrong-headed that calling them all creationists wouldn't really serve my point in criticizing Plantinga's response to Jones' decision.

The case that the institute made in the trial and Plantinga's hasty response is the context.

[quote=Paprika[Answer my question: so from the textbook, some of DIers are creationists. Does that mean that they are all creationists?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I would say that all members of the Discovery Institute are creationists, with the exception of Berlinski who is not a theist and maybe some other non-theist contributors. I'm not sure if Berlinski still contributes to DI collateral, BTW.

[Paprika]

Perhaps you should, I don't know, read the decision?

Perhaps I should if I aim to critique the judge's decision, under the principle that I shouldn't critique something I haven't read. But I'm addressing the claims that you are bringing up about Plantinga's "sins"- which I've read.

Answer my question: so from the textbook, some of DIers are creationists. Does that mean that they are all creationists?

[whag]

Sure. So from the textbook, some of DIers are creationists. Does that mean that they are all creationists?

This is the swindle. Is context important? If the context is a textbook that says all forms were created abruptly, with features completely intact, then whether Behe later says he has no problem with "limited evolution"--an incoherent concept in modern biology, anyway--is immaterial.

Plantinga's article is about the trial's outcome, not a general defense of the soft (and I mean really soft, like Downey-soft) evolutionism of SOME DI spokespeople.

Perhaps you should, I don't know, read the decision? You recommended shunya read Plantinga, so it's not really too much to ask you and Plantinga's defenders to read the document that Plantinga responded to. You and OB made your case well. Don't screw it up by making the same mistakes as Shuny.

[Paprika]

One of Plantinga's sins was in saying Jones' decision is based on a YEC strawman and didn't acknowledge that DI are evolutionists, too. The big problem with that is that the textbook in question said that species didn't evolve but rather were created with their distinctive features intact.

Sure. So from the textbook, some of DIers are creationists. Does that mean that they are all creationists?