Plantinga Changed His Mind

[OingoBoingo]

Incomplete quote.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering...

Yes, its was an incomplete quote. My intent was to show whag the chain of posts and replies that led to our current back and forth. The rest of the quote was irrelevant to that chain.

. . . lao tzu responded appropriately.

Yes, I read lao tzu's post. Its not relevant to the chain I was trying to show whag.

Bad attempt and did not address the problem. ID does not challenge the Theory of Evolution, because it offers no falsifiable Hypothesis nor theories.

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. Whether or not Plantinga actually makes that claim has nothing to do with what I posted in post #18. What I stated, and what you replied to, was about Plantinga's concern that academia has made evolution an idol, and that he feels that that idol cannot be touched without scorn.

Does not help. . .

What are you talking about? It does not help me that I've read Plantinga's views before I met you and whag?

[shunyadragon]

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/

How many Christian theologians does it take to screw in a light bulb?

They will pray and pray and never do it, because it must be guided, before it can happen.

[OingoBoingo]

Nope. What you did was provide one quote from Plantinga saying ID research is "dubious" while ignoring the history of his support for it, which tends to undermine your quote.

.

I'm already aware of how Plantinga applies his teleological arguments, so you don't have to worry about that.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure why I'm bothering. . .

I do not know also??

Yes, I read lao tzu's post. Its not relevant to the chain I was trying to show whag.

It is relevant as to the relevance of the responses

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. Whether or not Plantinga actually makes that claim has nothing to do with what I posted in post #18. What I stated, and what you replied to, was about Plantinga's concern that academia has made evolution an idol, and that he feels that that idol cannot be touched without scorn.

Plantinga made the claim when he stated, 'Academia has made evolution an idol.' What you described was just an echo.

What are you talking about? It does not help me that I've read Plantinga's views before I met you and whag?

We all have read Plantinga's works before we met.

[OingoBoingo]

I do not know also??



It is relevant as to the relevance of the responses





Plantinga made the claim when he stated, 'Academia has made evolution an idol.' What you described was just and echo.





We all have read Plantinga's works before we met.

Oh brother. You're hopeless.

[Paprika]

On the contrary, an intelligent response would include counter-examples.

The context of the statement that shunyadragon paraphrased is a quote from Plantinga, where he gives as evidence a quotation by Dawkins. I'm assuming the reader is intelligent and keeping up with the discussion: an example had already been given by Plantinga as support for his statement, if shunyadragon wants to dispute the quotation the burden of proof is on him.

You seem to be labouring under some belief that this thread is intended to serve as a constructive exchange of views...

[whag]

The context of the statement that shunyadragon paraphrased is a quote from Plantinga, where he gives as evidence a quotation by Dawkins. I'm assuming the reader is intelligent and keeping up with the discussion: an example had already been given by Plantinga as support for his statement, if shunyadragon wants to dispute the quotation the burden of proof is on him.

You seem to be labouring under some belief that this thread is intended to serve as a constructive exchange of views...

Is a constructive exchange of views possible with this mindset?

Many contemporary experts and spokespersons--Francisco Ayala, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, William Provine, and Philip Spieth, for example--unite in declaring that evolution is no mere theory, but established fact. According to them, this story is not just a virtual certainty, but a real certainty.11 Now why do they think so? Given the spotty character of the evidence--for example, a fossil record displaying sudden appearance and subsequent stasis and few if any genuine examples of macroevolution, no satisfactory account of a mechanism by which the whole process could have happened, and the like[....]

For someone who claims to be an evolutionist, that sounds a bit too rote creo to me. Accepting evolution as the most likely theory for the development of life certainly does not = idol worship. Why Plantinga bangs that drum, we have no idea.

[Juvenal]

The context of the statement that shunyadragon paraphrased is a quote from Plantinga, where he gives as evidence a quotation by Dawkins. I'm assuming the reader is intelligent and keeping up with the discussion: an example had already been given by Plantinga as support for his statement, if shunyadragon wants to dispute the quotation the burden of proof is on him.

How evolution happened is an active area of research, making it as far from untouchable as is imaginable. Whether evolution happened, on the other hand, is grist for the laughter mill. In that narrower sense, I'd agree with Plantinga that evolution truly is untouchable, or at least as untouchable as the theory of gravity. The Plantinga citation given by Shuny supports the thesis that Plantinga's ignorance of the theory is indeed so risibly profound.

You seem to be labouring under some belief that this thread is intended to serve as a constructive exchange of views...

As an ardent American, I prefer no labour at all.

As ever, Jesse

[shunyadragon]

Nope. What you did was provide one quote from Plantinga saying ID research is "dubious" while ignoring the history of his support for it, which tends to undermine your quote.

I have followed Plantinga for some time, which is why I previously at one point asked for more recent references, because his epistemology evolves and changes sometimes subtly. It appears that this 2010 quote where he says ID research is "dubious" is a big change, and yes, he needs give a more complete explanation of this 'change.'

If the only 'Hallmark' of his life's work is: if God exists atheism (Metaphysical Naturalism) is false,' and based on 'properly basic function' from Calvinist Reformed Epistemology belief in God is a 'properly basic belief' that need not be supported by evidence or an argument, Plantinga is in trouble,. That is as profound as 'If the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day at noon on the fourth of July, it is not Stanford Red.'

[whag]

I have followed Plantinga for some time, which is why I previously at one point asked for more recent references, because his epistemology evolves and changes sometimes subtly. It appears that this 2010 quote where he says ID research is "dubious" is a big change, and yes, he needs give a more complete explanation of this 'change.'

If the only 'Hallmark' of his life's work is: if God exists atheism (Metaphysical Naturalism) is false,' and based on 'properly basic function' from Calvinist Reformed Epistemology belief in God is a 'properly basic belief' that need not be supported by evidence or an argument, Plantinga is in trouble,. That is as profound as 'If the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day at noon on the fourth of July, it is not red.'

He can be forgiven for saying this:

More broadly, while there is wide agreement that there is such a thing as microevolution, the question is whether we can extrapolate to macroevolution, with the claim that enough microevolution can account for the enormous differences between, say, bacteria and human beings. There is some experiential reason to think not; there seems to be a sort of envelope of limited variability surrounding a species and its near relatives. Artificial selection can produce several different kinds of fruit flies and several different kinds of dogs, but, starting with fruit flies, what it produces is only more fruit flies.

How does one go from that statement to "ID research is dubious" without a profound change of heart?

Quote is from

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Fa...lantinga1.html

[shunyadragon]

He can be forgiven for saying this:

How does one go from that statement to "ID research is dubious" without a profound change of heart?

Quote is from

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Fa...lantinga1.html

This is a 1991 quote and reflects a very negative view from a YEC/OEC perspective of evolution, and not an enlightened Theistic Evolution perspective.

I do believe his view has evolved, but there definitely needs to be more explanation.

What is significant contribution of Plantinga to Christian Epistemology and Teleology?

[shunyadragon]

In 2013 Plantinga still stood his ground in his argument on design and that 'his' view of evolution is a defeater for Naturalism.

In his remarks, Plantinga offered two key propositions: (1) There is no inherent incompatibility between Darwinism, as Plantinga understands it, and Christian theism. (2) There is an inherent incompatibility between Darwinism and naturalism. In other words, while there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and Christian theism, there is superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism. Concerning the first proposition, Plantinga argued that since Darwinism only refers to the concept of universal common ancestry and successive modification, and the various mechanisms that account for it (including natural selection, mutations, recombination, genetic drift, etc.), such a view is not in tension with orthodox Christianity. Plantinga did concede that unguided evolution is not compatible with traditional theistic belief. He nonetheless argued that the allegedly unguided nature of evolutionary change is not part of the modern concept of Darwinian evolution. As for the second proposition, Dr. Plantinga articulated his well-known evolutionary argument against naturalism: If we are indeed the product of blind and purposeless processes, he says, the probability that our cognitive faculties are a reliable gauge for truth is likely to be relatively low, since natural selection promotes only survival. His conclusion is that one cannot rationally hold simultaneously to both evolution and naturalism, since belief that the human brain is the result of mindless chance and necessity is a defeater for any beliefs that one holds -- including naturalism.

[shunyadragon]

The problem with the dialogue in a coherent concept of 'design' by Jay Richards (Discovery Institute) and Alvin Plantinga and Jay Richards neither understand the basic science of evolution well in their statements after their dialogue:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04...fli058571.html

Plantinga -"In Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, I used the term "Darwinism" to denote the view or contention that the most important force driving the process of descent with modification is natural selection working on random genetic mutation. And I looked for definitions of "random," as used in biology, finding that in every official or semi-official definition of "random" I could find, the basic idea is that mutations are random with respect to adaptivity: most mutations are not adaptive, and mutations don't arise in response to the organism's adaptive needs in its environment. I said I thought Darwinism, taken this way, is compatible with theism. I believe Jay agrees with that thought. So where do we disagree?"

Jay Richards - "Several times, Professor Plantinga notes that I'm not using "Darwinism" as he uses the term. That's correct, and I think that's the core of our disagreement. In my view, since there is no official definition that practitioners consistently follow, determining the content of Darwinian theory, and of words such as "Darwinism," is very much a sociological and historical enterprise. Our use of these words should accommodate what Darwin said, how his work is understood, and how it is described and taught in textbooks and elsewhere. When we do that, I think it becomes clear that an essential property of Darwinism is either to deny real teleology in biology or at least to make it superfluous. To be precise, Darwinists typically see the combination of natural selection and random variations, rather than the random variations alone, as a design substitute."

Plantinga - "So am I right in thinking that our only disagreement is that Jay disapproves of my using the word "Darwinism" the way I did? Of course I agree that if we use the word to mean something like "the views of Darwin and those who agree with him" or "the view of most people who call themselves "Darwinists,'" then the sentence "Darwinism is inconsistent with teleology and design" expresses a truth. I also agree that those meanings would probably be closer to the ordinary meaning of the word than the meaning I was stipulating for it. But I was just stipulating a meaning for that discussion:"

Jay Richards - "For the time being, I will use the word "Darwinism" as an abbreviation for "the view that the most important force driving the process of descent with modification is natural selection working on random genetic mutation." So wherever I say "Darwinism" you can replace it with "the view that the most important force driving the process of descent with modification is natural selection working on random genetic mutation."

It would be real nice if they were discussing the actual 'Theory of Evolution' instead of a warped archaic discussion of 'Darwinism?' Any one with a Basic knowledge of college level science in Biology and Genetics should see the ridiculousness of the above dialogue. Need I explain???? Bolding mine.

The dialogue goes down hill from here, and get's more bizzaro!!!

[whag]

William Lane Craig also had a profound change of mind but in the other direction. Here he is saying he is between a theistic evolutionist and progressive creationist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSc92...e_gdata_player

Here he is saying he is neither a TE nor a progressive creationist:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/evolu...god-in-mankind

Curiously, he's said many times that if evolution is true, it's a miracle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qK...e_gdata_player

That's a two hour debate but very much worth watching.

[OingoBoingo]

William Lane Craig also had a profound change of mind but in the other direction. Here he is saying he is between a theistic evolutionist and progressive creationist:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/evolu...god-in-mankind

Here he is saying he is neither a TE nor a progressive creationist:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/evolu...god-in-mankind

Its the same link.