Plantinga Changed His Mind

[whag]

[MaxVel]

It seems we're relying on what other people say Plantinga said in this. I'm not sure if he ever did change his mind -perhaps his current position is what he's always felt. Being unconvinced by arguments for design doesn't mean that you think that design should be a priori ruled out, nor that further research on the matter is a waste.

[whag]

It seems we're relying on what other people say Plantinga said in this. I'm not sure if he ever did change his mind -perhaps his current position is what he's always felt. Being unconvinced by arguments for design doesn't mean that you think that design should be a priori ruled out, nor that further research on the matter is a waste.

That's the part that he probably regrets. He had strong confidence in Behe's research, but that amounted to nothing. What I wondering is whether he still believes godless mainstream science stymies research in theistic science, and the reasons he offers for that. He said as much in 1991 but didn't elucidate.

[seasanctuary]

You seem to be missing an "after" paragraph in the OP.

[whag]

You seem to be missing an "after" paragraph in the OP.

How do you mean?

[seasanctuary]

How do you mean?

Usually, when someone changes his mind, he believes one thing and then something different. But I'm not seeing the "something different" part in your OP.

[whag]

Usually, when someone changes his mind, he believes one thing and then something different. But I'm not seeing the "something different" part in your OP.

My bad. I assumed people interested in this topic knew that Plantinga has defended himself against Michael Ruse's charge that he supports ID. I'll try to find his response to Ruse later. In the meantime, I believe Oingo Boingo quoted Plantinga as saying ID isn't testable (in Shuny's thread).

[seasanctuary]

Ah, thanks.

[shunyadragon]

My bad. I assumed people interested in this topic knew that Plantinga has defended himself against Michael Ruse's charge that he supports ID. I'll try to find his response to Ruse later. In the meantime, I believe Oingo Boingo quoted Plantinga as saying ID isn't testable (in Shuny's thread).

Actually, I would like to see this quote in more detail and context, because Plantinga has strong bent and conditional justification of design on his view that Naturalism cannot justify design based on his theistic view of 'proper function, but then takes his view of evolution justifies 'design' and his specific theistic 'proper function' in his argument against Metaphysical Naturalism.

His conflating Methodological Naturalism with Philosophical Naturalism further complicates his argument.

[whag]

Actually, I would like to see this quote in more detail and context, because Plantinga has strong bent and conditional justification of design on his view that Naturalism cannot justify design based on his theistic view of 'proper function, but then takes his view of evolution justifies 'design' and his specific theistic 'proper function' in his argument against Metaphysical Naturalism.

His conflating Methodological Naturalism with Philosophical Naturalism further complicates his argument.

Read the book yourself. My tablet won't let me copy text from it in Google Play.

Better yet, read his response to the Dover decision (which is much more recent than the Ad Hoc Origins Committee letter).

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03..._de002054.html

I'm that article, he repeatedly mentions methodological naturalism. There's no better example of how he applies his argument to real life.

ETA: the actual link to the article:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3331

[whag]

Actually, I would like to see this quote in more detail and context, because Plantinga has strong bent and conditional justification of design on his view that Naturalism cannot justify design based on his theistic view of 'proper function, but then takes his view of evolution justifies 'design' and his specific theistic 'proper function' in his argument against Metaphysical Naturalism.

His conflating Methodological Naturalism with Philosophical Naturalism further complicates his argument.

I misunderstood you.

Oingo Boingo, can you provide the context of Plantinga's quote saying he didn't think ID was testable?

[shunyadragon]

You seem to be missing an "after" paragraph in the OP.

I do not believe there is an after. At least as far I have found there is not change.

[whag]

I do not believe there is an after. At least as far I have found there is not change.

It'd be useful if he clarified his position given the mixed messages he's sent. The absence of that clarification is why Ruse pounced.

[GakuseiDon]

Looks like this is Plantinga's response to Ruse. The quote below relevant to this discussion is taken from the full article, found here:
http://chronicle.com/article/Evoluti...ths-and/64990/

[GakuseiDon]

And for completeness, here is Ruse's article that Plantinga responded to:
http://chronicle.com/article/What-Da...rs-Get-/64457/