Plantinga wins Templeton Foundation Prize

[jillery]

Thanks to Jerry Coyne and his blog Why Evolution Is True:

<https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/templeton-abandons-pretense-of-rationality-awards-templeton-prize-to-alvin-plantinga-intelligent-design-advocate/>

<http://tinyurl.com/meunjro>

Once again, I am exposed to the arguments of yet another dishonest (ie
annoying) anti-evolutionist. And that's a good thing.

This short 2-minute video presents what appears to be one of
Plantinga's fundamental lines of reasoning:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Qv8tk9_tM&feature=youtu.be>

I see two fatal flaws with his line of reasoning:

1. Even if what he says were correct, he's talking about the veracity
of *beliefs*, not that of naturalism and evolution itself. Reality
works whether or not one believes in it.

2. There's a big gap between absolutely reliable and completely
unreliable. We know our faculties are unreliable, but are reliable
enough to recognize they are unreliable. That's why science doesn't
depend on human faculties alone, but combines them with evidence from
tools and experimentation.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 11:29:56 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> Thanks to Jerry Coyne and his blog Why Evolution Is True:
>
> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/templeton-abandons-pretense-of-rationality-awards-templeton-prize-to-alvin-plantinga-intelligent-design-advocate/>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/meunjro>
>
> Once again, I am exposed to the arguments of yet another dishonest (ie
> annoying) anti-evolutionist. And that's a good thing.
>

What exactly makes Platinga dishonest?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:04:55 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 11:29:56 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > Thanks to Jerry Coyne and his blog Why Evolution Is True:
> >
> > <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/templeton-abandons-pretense-of-rationality-awards-templeton-prize-to-alvin-plantinga-intelligent-design-advocate/>
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/meunjro>
> >
> > Once again, I am exposed to the arguments of yet another dishonest (ie
> > annoying) anti-evolutionist. And that's a good thing.
> >
>

> What exactly makes Plantinga dishonest?
>
> Ray
>

Misspelled his name, added the correction above.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Ray-

I'd like to share with you this quote from Plantinga:

"...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God."

I'd like to call your especial attention to that last sentence: "Like science in general, it [evolutionary theory] makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God."

Since you have called me a "brazen liar" for expressing EXACTLY that same view, I can only imagine that you must also find Plantinga dishonest, yes?

[Sean Dillon]

Oh... here's the source for that: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Evolution-Shibboleths-and/64990/

[Ray Martinez]

Plantinga is a far worse liar than you because his intent is to suppress the objective claims of evolutionary theory, which are pro-Atheism. But don't lose track of the common denominator fact: ALL persons who accept evolution are liars. Plantinga is an "Evolutionist"----that's why he won the Templeton Prize. Real anti-evolutionists are not eligible to win.

Plantinga: "Like science in general, it [evolutionary theory] makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God."

The theory says causation is unguided, undirected, and unintelligent; that is, invisible Intelligence, invisible Director, and invisible Guide are KNOWN not to be present.

Ernst Mayr (in support):

"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that “the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials”, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories" ("One Long Argument" 1991:99).

Ray (Paleyan IDist; species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

Here's more BASIC evidence that Plantinga is inexcusably dishonest:

The theory of evolution says causation is natural; hence in relevant literature the phrase natural evolution is found abundantly. In these context "natural" means "non-supernatural." So Plantinga's claim about "no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God" is shown to be a brazen lie. Evolutionary theory specifically says causation is non-supernatural. Therefore the God-neutrality and God-silent claims are brazen lies.

Plantinga's claims are empowered by the lie that evolution is neutral or silent about God, which was invented by Atheists. Your lies have come back to haunt you, Atheists. Why is Coyne so upset? Hasn't he propagated the neutrality and silent claims?

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

This has you in quite a froth, Ray.

[Sean Dillon]

Well, you asked what exactly makes him dishonest. I guess you answered that question for yourself. And made yourself a bit ridiculous at the same time.

So it is really a win-win, as far as I'm concerned.

[r3p...@gmail.com]

We have always said Evolutionists are brazen liars. The sobering facts here clearly support.

Ray (species immutbilist)

[Sean Dillon]

I'm curious, Ray: Why do you imagine that one of the country's most prominent living Christian apologist philosophers, who argues forcefully for the existence of the Christian God, who argues against metaphysical naturalism... what possible reason would such a person have for LYING about the neutrality of evolutionary science on the question of God's existence?

I mean, I definitely understand that you think he is WRONG, but if he doesn't genuinely believe what he's saying, what would be the benefit in saying it? What convinces you that he is LYING?

It is fascinating to me that the notion of science being neutral on the subject of God's existence so threatens your worldview, that you lash out with such blind fury at anyone who dares suggest it. While I wouldn't presume to know what is going on in your head, Ray, I think you a smart enough guy to realize that if science is silent on God's existence, your entire outlook collapses like a house of cards.

[Ray Martinez]

Sean's "reply" means he can't refute while choosing to misrepresent (lie).

FACT: Evolutionary causation in scientific literature is described as natural, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. The supernatural, invisible Guide, Director, and Intelligence is accounted for as KNOWN to be absent.

Yet very many evolution scholars have said the theory is neutral or silent about God. But the descriptions of evolutionary causation, listed above, expose these claims to be brazen lies.

Now read Sean's "reply" again.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Ernest Major]

Given that Ray tells us that ad-hominem betokens an inability to refute,
I think that we can conclude that Ray recognises his inability to refute
the observation that science is silent on God's existence.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Sean Dillon]

Ray, I've responded to this elsewhere, explaining in great detail why it is IMPOSSIBLE for properly conducted science to have a position on the existence of God. I don't feel compelled to do so again here.

[Ray Martinez]

BECAUSE, like I've already said, it's a BASIC 101 fact found in scientific literature abundantly: evolutionary causation is described as natural (means non-supernatural); unguided (means invisible Guide not present); undirected (means invisible Director not present) and unintelligent (means invisible Intelligence not present).

Are we to believe a scholar like Plantinga doesn't know about these adjectives and their meanings? Of course he does, which makes him a brazen liar. Plantinga accepts a theory that explicitly says his God did not create any living thing, past or present.

>
> It is fascinating to me that the notion of science being neutral on the subject of God's existence so threatens your worldview, that you lash out with such blind fury at anyone who dares suggest it. While I wouldn't presume to know what is going on in your head, Ray, I think you a smart enough guy to realize that if science is silent on God's existence, your entire outlook collapses like a house of cards.
>

I just point out basic facts while supporting our claim that people who accept evolution are brazen liars. Plantinga deserves ZERO respect. The facts dictate that he is a traitor. How can a scholar say evolution is neutral or silent about God yet accept the adjectival descriptions of evolutionary causation?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You asserted and explained an impossibility over and over----evolution neutral or silent about God. Refuted by the fact that biology accepts Naturalism and the fact that Darwin offered naturalistic evolution as refuting special creation, which you finally acknowledged but failed to incorporate in your neutrality arguments because you couldn't, the Darwin fact refutes neutrality and silence.

You even attempted to say a prefix word negates the meaning of Naturalism, but you finally admitted that these words do not act as negation. The fact here also refutes your neutrality/silence claims.

Evolution scholars have been lying to the public for decades. Evolution is clearly pro-Atheism. If they would lie about an uncomplicated fact then how much more would they lie about complicated scientific evidence?

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

What ad homs?

I supported our long standing claim that people who accept evolution are brazen liars. Are you suggesting that we don't make that claim? Or are you saying you've never seen the "lying for Darwin" accusation?

As for the claim that science is silent or neutral about God I've made the following observation many times now:

It's a BASIC 101 fact found in scientific literature abundantly: evolutionary causation is described as natural (means non-supernatural); unguided (means invisible Guide not present); undirected (means invisible Director not present) and unintelligent (means invisible Intelligence not present).

So the claim that science is neutral or silent about God is refuted plainly and clearly.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Stevet]

You are correct, science is not neutral or silent about God. "God" is not
a scientific concept so, as far as science is concerned " God" is a
meaningless concept. Declaring something as meaningless is not being silent
or neutral about it. ( Of course that is not saying God is meaningless
outside of a scientific context)

That many people consider science to be neutral or silent about God is as
strange as them thinking science is neutral or silent about Zeus or The
Magic Teapot.


--
Stevet

[raven1]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:10:11 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>FACT: Evolutionary causation in scientific literature is described as natural, unguided, undirected, and unintelligent.

Ray, science is about providing natural explanations for natural
phenomena, and that applies across the board. Why does evolution draw
your ire over, say, naturalistic explanations for lightning, or
volcanoes?

[Sean Dillon]

Different way of saying the same thing. The existence or non-existence of God is not testable within a scientific framework, so science cannot comment on the ontological status of God.

[Sean Dillon]

Well, if you read his quote, he DOESN'T accept those adjectival descriptions. Indeed, he rejects them pointedly:

"As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance."

Where he differs from you is that he doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. He recognizes that the NOTION of evolution via survival selection amongst randomly (that is, randomly from a human perspective) varying replicators is not intrinsically at odds with the possibility of divine influence. And he's right about that. In my opinion, he's wrong about a lot else, but he gets that much.

I fully expect you to reject my thoughts above, which is sad but unsurprising. But I want to rephrase my other question, because I didn't ask it well the first time.

Plantinga is many things, but an atheist he is clearly not. His work doesn't center on evolution, but on Christian apologetics. In that capacity, he is one of the foremost academic philosophical proponents of Christianity alive today. Given that you think the neutrality of science on the question of God's existence is a blatant atheistic conspiracy, what possible reason would a man such as Plantinga have for lying to preserve such a conspiracy?

TL;DR: Why would a prominent and obviously intelligent advocate of Christianity lie to preserve a pro-atheistic conspiracy? How do you make sense of that?

[Ray Martinez]

Where did Plantinga obtain the idea that Darwinian evolution, that is, accepted evolution, is not unguided? His quotation portrays unguided evolution and Darwinian evolution as separate things. Plantinga has a subjective view of evolution. He essentially treats the neutrality claim as the objective and the unguided claim as the subjective. Again I ask: What scientific source did Plantinga obtain the idea that evolution is not unguided? I can provide a gazillion scientific sources that say evolution is unguided.

Next issue: Plantinga fights hard for a God-neutral evolutionary theory because science accepts the theory unanimously. This fact dictates that he does not want to be seen as opposing science. He fears being perceived as a Creationist and the intellectual rejection that comes with it. In other words Plantinga fears the secular world, not God. He is a traitor who has bowed his knee to Baal (= Darwin). Atheists accept evolution because evolution is their explanation of species. No amount of subjective nonsense from his keyboard can change the fact. Science says evolution is unguided. Plantinga is a premeditated liar. Glad he is in bed with you Atheists, and at least you guys are on top. What more could you want?

I invoke my identity rule to expose Plantinga's claim that he is a Christian to be false. Christ did not lead him to accept a theory that expressly rejects His Father as designer and creator.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

I'm calling this one out. Please do. Not a gazillion... that's not even a real number. But maybe ten? Not popular scientific commentary, but actual scientific sources. I'm not claiming that you can't, I just actually want to see what these sources you claim you have actually said.

[Sean Dillon]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:29:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
[snip]

> I invoke my identity rule to expose Plantinga's claim that he is a Christian to be false. Christ did not lead him to accept a theory that expressly rejects His Father as designer and creator.
>
> Ray

FYI: this is the bit that makes you look ridiculous.

[Stevet]

????

They are not 2 different ways of saying the same thing. You are saying
science cannot comment, I am saying science says the whole notion is
meaningless. Saying something is nonsensical is not synonymous with making
no comment about it

--
Stevet

[Ernest Major]

The (spurious) grounds on which you adopt the pro-atheism position that
evolution supports atheism could equally well be applied to other bits
of science, including some that predate 1859. Physics, geology,
chemistry and astronomy are equally silent about God.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Sean Dillon]

Then I disagree with you. God is unexaminable by science... that doesn't mean science declares the concept meaningless, even within the context of science. The term "God" can absolutely be assigned a particular meaning, and science can even ATTEMPT to find a test of such an entity's existence. But unless "god" is defined in a very narrow and restrictive way, science is destined to fail at finding a viable test. So the inevitable outcome is that science has to conclude, "Sorry... can't help you with that one."

[Ray Martinez]

Sean, by his own admission, has recently claimed to be an "Agnostic-Atheist" while having no awareness of the rudimentary contradiction even after it was brought to his attention. Now this same person is defending Plantinga's identity claim, professing Christianity, by attempting to cast my challenge of Plantinga's claim as ridiculous.

Apparently Sean believes identity claims are exempt from evidential support. They are not. And whenever an Atheist approves of a Christian the same becomes quality evidence against the veracity of the claim because an Atheist would never approve of a genuine Christian. The only reason Sean is defending Plantinga is because Plantinga endorses evolution.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:09:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:29:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> I invoke my identity rule to expose Plantinga's claim that he is a Christian to be false. Christ did not lead him to accept a theory that expressly rejects His Father as designer and creator.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> FYI: this is the bit that makes you look ridiculous.
>
> Sean, by his own admission, has recently claimed to be an "Agnostic-Atheist" while having no awareness of the rudimentary contradiction even after it was brought to his attention.

Well, you asserted that there was a contradiction. Others pointed out,
using perfectly legitimate ans well established definitions of the term,
that there isn't necessarily one.

One I quoted, and who directly endorsed Sean's view, came from a highly
respected professor of divinity:

"The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There
is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of
atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one"

This was from his Croall lecture, a prestigious lecture series in
Christian theology at my university since 1975 - most recently by
Frances Young, which was quite excellent.

>Now this same person is defending Plantinga's identity claim, professing Christianity, by attempting to cast my challenge of Plantinga's claim as ridiculous.

Well, it is. You have a weird and inconsistent metaphysical theory of
causality which nobody apart from you holds, and you make it the litmus
test for Christianity.

>
> Apparently Sean believes identity claims are exempt from evidential support.

Don't think he said that. He just has a less insane concept of what type
of evidence is needed to make someone a Christian.

[Stevet]

So what scientific meaning can the sign "God" signify?
What scientific meaning can the sign "Zeus" signify?
What will be the criteria for deciding we have an instance of "God" or
"Zeus" before, or not before, us?


--
Stevet

[Sean Dillon]

One possible definition: A benevolent personal entity external to the physical universe, with complete knowledge of reality, and the ability to affect physical reality at will. This entity is posited to be the First Cause of the universe's existence.

> What scientific meaning can the sign "Zeus" signify?

A highly powerful, personal entity residing on Mt. Olympus. Lightning is posited to be a result of this entity throwing "thunder bolts" down from his location.

In both cases,

> What will be the criteria for deciding we have an instance of "God" or
> "Zeus" before, or not before, us?

We can't, which is why science is unable to comment on their existence. But that is a result of them being untestable, not some a priori exclusion from potentially being meaningful in a scientific context.


>
>
> --
> Stevet

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 8:54:54 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:09:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:29:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> I invoke my identity rule to expose Plantinga's claim that he is a Christian to be false. Christ did not lead him to accept a theory that expressly rejects His Father as designer and creator.
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>
> >> FYI: this is the bit that makes you look ridiculous.
> >
> > Sean, by his own admission, has recently claimed to be an "Agnostic-Atheist" while having no awareness of the rudimentary contradiction even after it was brought to his attention.
>
> Well, you asserted that there was a contradiction. Others pointed out,
> using perfectly legitimate ans well established definitions of the term,
> that there isn't necessarily one.
>
> One I quoted, and who directly endorsed Sean's view, came from a highly
> respected professor of divinity:
>
> "The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There
> is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of
> atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one"
>
> This was from his Croall lecture, a prestigious lecture series in
> Christian theology at my university since 1975 - most recently by
> Frances Young, which was quite excellent.
>

Burk suggests that a credentialed person is somehow exempt from making contradictions. And in the point at issue, Burk, like his source and Sean, have advocated a contradiction, which means an impossibility. A cannot be A and not A at the same time. Agnostic and Atheist are two different things, a person cannot be both at the same time. Evolutionists attempt these feats routinely in many different areas. All of the same supports our claim that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact, which supports our related claim that a delusion is at work, but its operating on persons who believe in evolution, and not on persons who believe in God.

>
> >Now this same person is defending Plantinga's identity claim, professing Christianity, by attempting to cast my challenge of Plantinga's claim as ridiculous.
>
> Well, it is. You have a weird and inconsistent metaphysical theory of
> causality which nobody apart from you holds, and you make it the litmus
> test for Christianity.
> >
> > Apparently Sean believes identity claims are exempt from evidential support.
>
> Don't think he said that. He just has a less insane concept of what type
> of evidence is needed to make someone a Christian.
>
> >They are not. And whenever an Atheist approves of a Christian the same becomes quality evidence against the veracity of the claim because an Atheist would never approve of a genuine Christian. The only reason Sean is defending Plantinga is because Plantinga endorses evolution.
> >
> > Ray
> >

How does anyone in Russia or California or Panama know that Plantinga is a genuine Christian? Answer: By what he argues for or against. Plantinga argues for evolution and design, he does not argue against either, yet both contradict one another in any objective understanding of the debate. So Plantinga cannot be trusted to tell the truth therefore he is not a Christian judging by these actions.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Since you've seen the fact yourself in scientific sources, what's the point Sean? Are you suddenly doubting your own understanding of a basic claim of fact?

As for your request the answer is no. I won't provide any scientific source for an unguided or undirected selectio process. Absurd as it gets.

Ray

[Stevet]

That is not a scientific definition, it is just a rehash of other people's
beliefs.

What scientific observations or theories are the basis for your definition?
NONE!

I could make up a definition of the Magic Teapot...invisible, undetectable
and external to the Universe, creator of this Universe, a truly benevolent
teapot with a very high I.Q etc...., and declare that the Magic Teapot to
be a valid scientific concept!

>
>> What scientific meaning can the sign "Zeus" signify?
>
> A highly powerful, personal entity residing on Mt. Olympus. Lightning is
> posited to be a result of this entity throwing "thunder bolts" down from his location.
>
> In both cases,
>> What will be the criteria for deciding we have an instance of "God" or
>> "Zeus" before, or not before, us?
>
> We can't, which is why science is unable to comment on their existence.
> But that is a result of them being untestable, not some a priori
> exclusion from potentially being meaningful in a scientific context.
>

If you have no criteria for deciding if you have or have not an instance of
X before you then X is meaningless, something you can neither recognise or
not recognise. Nonsensical.

And God is not a priori excluded as no prior reasoning is involved, it is
linguistically or grammatically ( in the Analytical philosophy usage)
excluded simply because it is not a scientific term and hence meaningless
in a scientific context e.g just like heat imp or tree sprite or river
demon or ( alas!) Magic Teapot etc

( And of course I am not denying God is meaningful in other discourses or
contexts)

>>
>>
>> --
>> Stevet
>
>
>



--
Stevet

[Ray Martinez]

Sean, where did Plantinga obtain the idea that natural selection is not unguided or undirected? I ask because I can't find even one evolutionary biologist who says otherwise.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

So you CAN provide a "gazillion" sources, but you won't?

I am asking, because I want to see the CONTEXT in which the claim is being made, to see if it actually supports your argument, and if it is being made within actual scientific literature, or whether it is an assertion being made by an individual scientist outside of the context of peer reviewed scientific work.

Because I would tell you that in MY experience, it is far from universally agreed that evolution COULD not be "guided" or "directed" by a god "working behind the scenes." The Theory itself does not preclude it.

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 2:34:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Sean, where did Plantinga obtain the idea that natural selection is not unguided or undirected? I ask because I can't find even one evolutionary biologist who says otherwise.
>
> Ray

I imagine from the fact that there is nothing in the theory itself precludes the possibility that God COULD be guiding evolution, in a way/at a level that is not perceptible to us. ... Perhaps by assuring that a particular mutation arises at a particular time, or by causing particular individual organisms to meet and breed, or by manipulating an environment to encourage change in a particular direction. There are a multitude of ways in which an all-powerful, all-knowing deity could manipulate the physical universe to exercise an "invisible hand" in guiding the development of life in particular directions.

We can only observe what is happening at the physical level. Nothing about what is happening at the physical-biological level suggests a NEED for a guiding force to explain what we observe, but science also has no way of ruling it out. And I would argue forcefully that anyone who says otherwise is incorrect (or perhaps being misinterpreted).

All that we CAN observe is that everything we see in biology (from paleontology to genetics) is highly consistent with the expectations of evolution from a common ancestry. So IF God is behind it all, it certainly appears that he used evolution as His primary mechanism. And science has NOTHING to say about whether God is behind it all.

[Sean Dillon]

Or to look at it another way, even if the development of life does proceed in strict accordance with evolution, with no need for ongoing guidance, that no more disproves God than physical bodies strictly behaving in accordance with the laws of gravity disproves God. If God did it right in the first place, there probably isn't a need for him to be constantly fussing with the universe... it will unfurl just as he intended it to.

[Ray Martinez]

Notice how Sean suddenly changes his request from seeking statements about the unguided action of the selection process to providing support for excluding the possibility of a deistic first cause, which is even more ridiculous in view of the fact that evolutionary biology accepts abiogenesis. And note the fact that Sean suddenly implies that he has never seen a scientist say the selection process is unguided or undirected. This is why I observe Sean to lie quite frequently. In science there is no dispute: natural selection is unguided, the product of abiogenesis.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Abiogenesis is ALSO not incompatible with the possibility of God's existence. I know you have trouble getting your head around that notion, but it is nonetheless true.

And I haven't changed my request... I would still very much like to see you produce references from actual scientific literature to the effect that evolution is necessarily an unguided process. That you seem so reluctant to do so is very telling.

>And note the fact that Sean suddenly implies that he has never seen a scientist say the selection process is unguided or undirected.

Oh, I certainly didn't say or imply that. OUTSIDE of the context of the scientific literature, I have indeed seen scientists make such statements. Jerry Coyne, for example. But that is reflective of Coyne's personal opinions, not of science itself.

>This is why I observe Sean to lie quite frequently.

I really don't, Ray. And I'm damned tired of the character assassination. Not everyone who disagrees with you is lying.

>In science there is no dispute: natural selection is unguided, the product of abiogenesis.

There is little dispute that evolution followed from abiogenesis. However, science does not and cannot rule out the possibility that either life's inception or life's subsequent development were invisibly guided by the Will of God. That is a metaphysical question, outside the realm of what science is capable of addressing.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 8:54:54 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:09:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:29:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> I invoke my identity rule to expose Plantinga's claim that he is a Christian to be false. Christ did not lead him to accept a theory that expressly rejects His Father as designer and creator.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>>> FYI: this is the bit that makes you look ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Sean, by his own admission, has recently claimed to be an "Agnostic-Atheist" while having no awareness of the rudimentary contradiction even after it was brought to his attention.
>>
>> Well, you asserted that there was a contradiction. Others pointed out,
>> using perfectly legitimate ans well established definitions of the term,
>> that there isn't necessarily one.
>>
>> One I quoted, and who directly endorsed Sean's view, came from a highly
>> respected professor of divinity:
>>
>> "The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There
>> is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of
>> atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one"
>>
>> This was from his Croall lecture, a prestigious lecture series in
>> Christian theology at my university since 1975 - most recently by
>> Frances Young, which was quite excellent.
>>
>
> Burk suggests that a credentialed person is somehow exempt from making contradictions.

No, not really. I mainly cited him because of his impeccable Christian
credential, to preempt your usual ad hominem fallacy of accusing him t
be an atheist. His credentials are relevant though, as the issue at
stake is at least partly the definitions of agnostic and atheist, so
citing an expert in theology is pretty good evidence that this
understanding is indeed the way the relevant discipline defines the terms.


And last time round, a few posts up this thread, I also cited his
reasons for his claim , which are indeed sound. Here they are again

"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is
a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe
that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther,
and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human
knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is
incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot
know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an
agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is
erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous
so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other."

>And in the point at issue, Burk, like his source and Sean, have advocated a contradiction, which means an impossibility. A cannot be A and not A at the same time.

You keep misquoting and misapplying that principle. In full, it says
"It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same
thing at the same time and in the same respect." (if you take the
ontological version of the law rather than the logical one).

The "at the same time and in the same respect" that you keep omitting
matters. Atheism and agnosticism are about different respects, one is a
property of a person's ontology, the other of their epistemology.

> Agnostic and Atheist are two different things,

true, nobody disputes that

> a person cannot be both at the same time.

Of course persons can be different things at the same time. I'm 1.87m
and also over 50, German and Scottish, an academic and a harp player etc
etc

> Evolutionists attempt these feats routinely in many different areas. All of the same supports our claim that Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact, which supports our related claim that a delusion is at work, but its operating on persons who believe in evolution, and not on persons who believe in God.

the "we" again being you and your tapeworm I guess? As I said, my quote
is from a sometimes missionary, ordained minister of the Church of
Scotland where he was parish minister for over a decade, and then
professor of theology.

Amongst his books is not just "Agnosticism" from 1903, but also
"Christ's Kingdom upon Earth" (1865, mainly his sermons with
annotations) and "Theism" (1873).

As so often, educated theists and atheists can agree quite happily about
a point like this, you are the odd one out.

>
>>
>>> Now this same person is defending Plantinga's identity claim, professing Christianity, by attempting to cast my challenge of Plantinga's claim as ridiculous.
>>
>> Well, it is. You have a weird and inconsistent metaphysical theory of
>> causality which nobody apart from you holds, and you make it the litmus
>> test for Christianity.
>>>
>>> Apparently Sean believes identity claims are exempt from evidential support.
>>
>> Don't think he said that. He just has a less insane concept of what type
>> of evidence is needed to make someone a Christian.
>>
>>> They are not. And whenever an Atheist approves of a Christian the same becomes quality evidence against the veracity of the claim because an Atheist would never approve of a genuine Christian. The only reason Sean is defending Plantinga is because Plantinga endorses evolution.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>
> How does anyone in Russia or California or Panama know that Plantinga is a genuine Christian? Answer: By what he argues for or against.

Indeed. And he argued that
a) the Christian religion is the one true religion
b) that God created the earth
c) Christ, his son, did for our sins
d)it is possible to have adequate reasons to belief a-c rationally
e) by contrast , ontological naturalism is self defeating

That makes him a Christian by any rational standard, that he doesn't
share your personal obsession is really neither here nor there

[Sean Dillon]

That's the bit that makes Ray look so ridiculous. Plantinga has made an entire CAREER of arguing in favor of Christianity. The notion that this entire career is somehow outweighed by his opinion on a single, non-focal issue is just goofy. But then, so is the fact that Ray sees it as his place to be the arbiter who is or is not a Christian.

[Stevet]

I cannot follow this " reasoning"

1. He Is an atheist.

2 on reflection realises existence of God cannot be proved

3 Therefore "cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot
know it to be true" ( presume the " it" in "ceases to believe in it " is
atheism). So he stops
being an atheist

4 "he is an agnostic and also an atheist". ??? This does not follow, as 3
states he ceases to
believe in atheism so is no longer an atheist!

5. – "an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic"

What is this " reasoning", starts out believing in atheism, discovers
agnosticism and ceases believing in atheism but then reverts to atheism "
because an agnostic" !!!!

>
>
>> And in the point at issue, Burk, like his source and Sean, have
>> advocated a contradiction, which means an impossibility. A cannot be A
>> and not A at the same time.
>
> You keep misquoting and misapplying that principle. In full, it says
> "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same
> thing at the same time and in the same respect." (if you take the
> ontological version of the law rather than the logical one).

“Roughly speaking: to say of two things that they are identical is
nonsense, and to say of one thing that it is identical with itself is to
say nothing.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein,

>
> The "at the same time and in the same respect" that you keep omitting
> matters. Atheism and agnosticism are about different respects, one is a
> property of a person's ontology, the other of their epistemology.
>
>> Agnostic and Atheist are two different things,
>
> true, nobody disputes that
>
>> a person cannot be both at the same time.
>
> Of course persons can be different things at the same time. I'm 1.87m
> and also over 50, German and Scottish, an academic and a harp player etc
> etc

Yes but you cannot be both 1.87m and 1.88 m or be both under and over 50.
Since agnosticism claims we cannot have the knowledge to prove/ disprove
God hence any belief/ disbelief is unfounded then to say you are
Agnostic but do not believe in God is a contradiction in your own
reasoning.

S

--
Stevet

[Ray Martinez]

The objective claims of evolutionary theory are pro-atheism----that's why Atheists accept the theory unanimously. Clearly seen in the basic facts that the theory uses Naturalism and describes causation accordingly----unguided and undirected, and other synonymous terms. Are we to believe Christ approves of Plantinga's acceptance of these claims which specifically say the Father of Christ did not create any living thing, past or present? Obviously Plantinga doesn't accept these objective claims. Plantinga accepts "evolution," not evolution, that is, the evolution science accepts.

Are we to believe a scholar doesn't understand that a

[Ray Martinez]

....a thing or theory has objective claims that cannot be altered? Imagine that, a scholar who doesn't know or denies that every alleged fact produced by evolutionary theory was produced using the assumptions of Naturalism?

Anyone can claim to be a Christian. The claim is shown false when one accepts claims produced by the assumptions of Naturalism.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

I think you may be misreading. The "it" in "ceases to believe in it" is God. And I don't think it is meant to be read as a progression, but rather as an alternative. In other words:

Possibility 1: Man sees no evidence of God, so is an atheist.
Possibility 2: Man recognizes it is impossible to prove the existence of God, and therefore does not believe in God on the basis that he cannot know it to be true. He is therefore both an atheist (does not believe in God) and an agnostic (recognizes the truth cannot be known with certainty).

No. Just because a belief cannot be proven/disproven does NOT mean that that belief is unfounded, only that it is not certain.

[Sean Dillon]

Nope! We accept them (near) unanimously, because -- lacking any cause to buy into a creation myth -- we have no motivation to reject it.

>Clearly seen in the basic facts that the theory uses Naturalism and describes causation accordingly----unguided and undirected, and other synonymous terms.

Uh huh. Still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is on that one.

And I will tell you again: there is nothing in the theory of evolution itself that precludes the possibility of a deity's "invisible hand" being behind evolution.

>Are we to believe Christ approves of Plantinga's acceptance of these claims which specifically say the Father of Christ did not create any living thing, past or present?

He explicitly did NOT say that... he said that God may have used evolution AS A MECHANISM to do that creation. Meaning that you are both bearing false witness AND disobeying Jesus's command to judge not let ye be judged. By Ray's Identity Rule, I guess that makes YOU not a Christian, huh?

>Obviously Plantinga doesn't accept these objective claims. Plantinga accepts "evolution," not evolution, that is, the evolution science accepts.

Or... hold on to your seat, Ray: maybe YOU are wrong about what science accepts. Science does not -- and cannot -- conclude whether a deity is "behind" any natural phenomenon. Individual scientists MAY feel that evolution is unguided by a deity, and science can CERTAINLY conclude that evolution is unguided by any physical entity, but science CANNOT conclude either way on whether God is "behind" evolution. That's a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

Whoever told you otherwise has badly mislead you, and I pity you for that.

>
> Are we to believe a scholar doesn't understand that a

No, we are to believe that YOU don't understand.

[raven1]

Come to think of it, every area of science is silent about God.

[Stevet]

It is not clear and there is an ellipsis in the quote, although it does say
" if he goes farther" which is why I took it as a progression, and still
do.

However it we accept your reading then your 2 is still a contradiction in
that the certainty of a belief does not mean you do not hold it and also
contradictory as your belief is not justified as "agnosticism is the view
that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to
justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not
exist" or "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of
the existence or nature of God" .

If you and others wish to extend the usage of the term " agnostic" from its
normal and long term usage and original spirit and scientific basis as a
contra to both beliefs, atheism and theism, and coin confusing neologisms
such as " agnostic atheist" then that is ok, but it does not remove the
basic contradiction in your thinking.

Ok, just substitute not certain for unfounded.

--
Stevet

[Sean Dillon]

Well, I agree with you that, as written, it is clumsily phrased. But as you note: read your way, it doesn't really make much sense. Context makes it clear that that ceasing to believe in God, not ceasing to believe in atheism, is what the author intended:

https://books.google.com/books?id=DWMtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 51)

>
> However it we accept your reading then your 2 is still a contradiction in
> that the certainty of a belief does not mean you do not hold it and also
> contradictory as your belief is not justified as "agnosticism is the view
> that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to
> justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not
> exist" or "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of
> the existence or nature of God" .

Please note that you just posted two DIFFERENT definitions of agnosticism above. One is about lacking rational grounds for any belief. The other is merely about what can be KNOWN... that is to say, what we can be certain of. I (and others here) are distinctly using that latter definition, as was the author of that quote. If you assume we were using the prior definition, I can certainly understand why it would confuse you.

>
> If you and others wish to extend the usage of the term " agnostic" from its
> normal and long term usage and original spirit and scientific basis as a
> contra to both beliefs, atheism and theism, and coin confusing neologisms
> such as " agnostic atheist" then that is ok, but it does not remove the
> basic contradiction in your thinking.

Steve, the quote YOU have been discussing is from a lecture from 1887. It explicitly uses the term agnostic-atheist, and it is used EXACTLY in the sense I am now using it. There is nothing neologistic or self-contradictory about my usage. I am using both terms -- atheist and agnostic -- in a way they have been used for over 125 years.

Further, I don't think there is anything particularly confusing about it... I would imagine that most people, encountering the phrase for the first time, would correct surmise my meaning: that I am an atheist who also believes the truth of existence of God is ultimately unknown and unknowable.

I do not believe there is a God, but I do not believe certain knowledge on the question is possible, for or against. There is no contradiction in that.

[Stevet]

By some people, not the mainstream Huxleyian usage

That is perfectly understandable, and I give up on defending the spirit of
Huxley's original intent since, as I have said, I do not agree with his
logic anyway. He is wrong to grant atheism and theism logical equivalence
by saying both are "beliefs". Not holding a belief that other people hold
is not itself a belief. It is not " I do not believe in God" which is an
affirming negative stating you have a belief, but rather that "I do not
hold the belief some others hold that God exists" which is a non- affirming
negative and is not a statement of any belief. This of course means I
disagree with both you and Huxley, in that it is not sensible to even talk
about degrees of your knowledge of what only somebody else believes.

As the philosopher Nagarjuna said

" If to believe in the existence of something non- existent is foolishness,
Then to believe in the existence of that non- existence is stupidity"

--
Stevet

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:17:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>So Plantinga cannot be trusted to tell the truth therefore he is not a Christian judging by these actions.

Christianity teaches that all are sinners equally in the eyes of the
Lord.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Burkhard]

I read it a bit differently - what changes are the grounds on which the
belief is formed - he starts out wit being an atheist due to not having
any actual reasons to believe in a deity, and then, upon reflection,
comes to the conclusion that there isn't even any possible evidence.

Compare to a mathematician who tries to prove the continuum hypothesis
within ZFC set theory and fails every time, concluding that it is
therefore probably not true, and then finding in independence proof by
Cohen that tells him that neither the continuum hypothesis nor its
negation can be possibly proven within ZFC

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> Sean, where did Plantinga obtain the idea that natural selection is not unguided or undirected? I ask because I can't find even one evolutionary biologist who says otherwise.
>
> Ray
>

Well, just read some of his works I'd suggest. But as he isn't a
scientists doing science, but a theology doing theology, the broad
answer is from the bible and the theological literature that followed it.

Since his statement is not a scientific claim, but a
philosophical/theological claim about science, that's pretty much what
one should expect.

[Stevet]

In which case he is saying he starts out not believing due to having no
reasons and then upon reflection finds an additional reason, that there is
no possibility of evidence. This to me suggests a " agnostic atheist" is a
STRONGER atheist than a pure atheist as they have now have double the
reasons for not believing.

and as we have had 3 different interpretations of the Rev's words perhaps
he did not express himself that clearly.

>
> Compare to a mathematician who tries to prove the continuum hypothesis
> within ZFC set theory and fails every time, concluding that it is
> therefore probably not true, and then finding in independence proof by
> Cohen that tells him that neither the continuum hypothesis nor its
> negation can be possibly proven within ZFC
>
>

--
Stevet

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9daf7612-dd52-441f...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 3:59:53 PM UTC-5, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 1:34:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 3:29:55 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:44:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> > > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:04:55 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez

>> > > > contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such-apart from
>> > > > philosophical or theological add-ons-doesn't say that evolution is

>> > > > unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on
>> > > > the existence or activity of God."
>> > > >
>> > > > I'd like to call your especial attention to that last sentence:
>> > > > "Like science in general, it [evolutionary theory] makes no
>> > > > pronouncements on the existence or activity of God."
>> > > >
>> > > > Since you have called me a "brazen liar" for expressing EXACTLY
>> > > > that same view, I can only imagine that you must also find
>> > > > Plantinga dishonest, yes?
>> > > >
>> > >

> It is fascinating to me that the notion of science being neutral on the
> subject of God's existence so threatens your worldview, that you lash out
> with such blind fury at anyone who dares suggest it. While I wouldn't
> presume to know what is going on in your head, Ray, I think you a smart
> enough guy to realize that if science is silent on God's existence, your
> entire outlook collapses like a house of cards.
>

Bingo!
That of course must be prevented, collapse is as unthinkable to Ray as
losing the war was to Hitler.

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:869f9c75-7365-40d7...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 5:54:54 PM UTC-5, Stevet wrote:
>> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > BECAUSE, like I've already said, it's a BASIC 101 fact found in
>> > scientific literature abundantly: evolutionary causation is described
>> > as
>> > natural (means non-supernatural); unguided (means invisible Guide not
>> > present); undirected (means invisible Director not present) and
>> > unintelligent (means invisible Intelligence not present).
>> >
>> > Are we to believe a scholar like Plantinga doesn't know about these
>> > adjectives and their meanings? Of course he does, which makes him a
>> > brazen liar. Plantinga accepts a theory that explicitly says his God

>> > did
>> > not create any living thing, past or present.

>> >
>> >>
>> >> It is fascinating to me that the notion of science being neutral on
>> >> the
>> >> subject of God's existence so threatens your worldview, that you lash
>> >> out with such blind fury at anyone who dares suggest it. While I
>> >> wouldn't presume to know what is going on in your head, Ray, I think
>> >> you
>> >> a smart enough guy to realize that if science is silent on God's
>> >> existence, your entire outlook collapses like a house of cards.
>> >>
>> >

>> > I just point out basic facts while supporting our claim that people who
>> > accept evolution are brazen liars. Plantinga deserves ZERO respect. The
>> > facts dictate that he is a traitor. How can a scholar say evolution is
>> > neutral or silent about God yet accept the adjectival descriptions of
>> > evolutionary causation?
>> >
>> > Ray
>> >
>> >
>>

>> You are correct, science is not neutral or silent about God. "God" is
>> not
>> a scientific concept so, as far as science is concerned " God" is a
>> meaningless concept. Declaring something as meaningless is not being
>> silent
>> or neutral about it. ( Of course that is not saying God is meaningless
>> outside of a scientific context)
>>
>> That many people consider science to be neutral or silent about God is as
>> strange as them thinking science is neutral or silent about Zeus or The
>> Magic Teapot.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stevet
>
> Different way of saying the same thing. The existence or non-existence of
> God is not testable within a scientific framework, so science cannot
> comment on the ontological status of God.
>

What can poor Ray do? Accept defeat? That is below his horizon.
Of two evils he choses the one that postpones defeat eternally.

[Ray Martinez]

Why Alvin Plantinga is not a real Christian

Sean Dillon, an Atheist, has maintained Alvin Plantinga a Christian based on his long-standing vehement defense of the divinity of Christ and His Resurrection. I understand what Sean is saying. Only a real Christian would defend these miracle claims, and I agree, however.

Plantinga supports and thus endorses the theory of evolution. Plantinga maintains that the theory is God-neutral or God-silent hence the fact allows him to say the Father of Christ created by evolution. But Plantinga, a scholar, is completely and inexcusably wrong. As a scholar he should know, could know, and does know the BASIC facts that the theory of evolution was produced by the assumptions of Naturalism and its evidence interpreting philosophy. The God-neutral or God-silence claims are therefore a brazen truth suppression attempt aimed at the government that funds science in America. Naturalism assumes the non-existence of God in natural reality and requires all interpretations and explanations of evidence to support said assumption. This is WHY each species originates from a prior species (common descent) and not from independent, separate, or special creation (= the power of God operating in reality).

The evidence interpreting requirements of Naturalism are what produced the objective claims of the theory. These claims of FACT describe evolutionary causation as natural, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and a host of other adjectives. Meaning: natural (= non-supernatural); unguided (= invisible Guide not present); undirected (invisible Director not present); unintelligent (= invisible Intelligence not present). God is duly accounted for as KNOWN to be completely absent from evolutionary causation hence God played no role in the production of diversity, past or present. The God-silence or God-neutral claims made by very many Evolutionists is shown to be, like I said, brazen truth suppression. Plantinga, a scholar, has no excuse. The objective facts briefly explicated here are BASIC and RUDIMENTARY. The nature of the facts and logic dictate that Plantinga should know, could know, and does know.

In this context Plantinga maintains the God-neutral or God-silent claim as nonetheless a fact. He rejects each description of evolutionary causation listed above. So Plantinga does in fact accept "evolution" and not evolution. But the fact that Plantinga knows and understands the objective claims of the theory, as seen in Naturalism and corresponding adjectival descriptions, means he knows and understands that evolution was and is the product of Naturalism assumptions.

Specifically the assumptions of Naturalism say the Father of Christ did not create any living thing, past or present; neither did He design any living thing, past or present. Naturalism ALSO says miracles do not occur, especially special creation miracles. So Naturalism, the evidence interpreting philosophy of evolutionary theory, is vehemently anti-Bible----a Book filled with miracle claims from cover to cover.

Given all of these BASIC and RUDIMENTARY facts, and their explanation, none of which are the least bit complicated, a person CANNOT say Christ approves of a theory that explicitly denies His Father creator and designer credit, and a person cannot say Christ led to accept a theory produced by the assumptions and evidence interpreting requirements of Naturalism.

Yet Alvin Plantinga does just that. He argues for the Resurrection and the theory of evolution knowing it was produced by the assumptions of Naturalism.

So we have an egregious contradiction, which dictates the following conclusion:

A person cannot invoke Plantinga a Christian, that is, a follower of Christ in the context of his acceptance and defense of evolutionary theory. To do so then implies Christ approves and has led him to defend a theory that says His Father did not create or design any living thing, past or present. Naturalism/Evolutionary theory says Divine inspiration (= miracle) is completely false. God did not inspire Genesis 1 and 2, the text is man-made.

Romans 1:20 (NIV):

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Alvin Plantinga is without excuse.

Ray (Old Earth; Paleyan; species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 12:54:56 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Why Alvin Plantinga is not a real Christian
>
> Sean Dillon, an Atheist, has maintained Alvin Plantinga a Christian based on his long-standing vehement defense of the divinity of Christ and His Resurrection. I understand what Sean is saying. Only a real Christian would defend these miracle claims, and I agree, however.
>
> Plantinga supports and thus endorses the theory of evolution. Plantinga maintains that the theory is God-neutral or God-silent hence the fact allows him to say the Father of Christ created by evolution. But Plantinga, a scholar, is completely and inexcusably wrong. As a scholar he should know, could know, and does know the BASIC facts that the theory of evolution was produced by the assumptions of Naturalism and its evidence interpreting philosophy. The God-neutral or God-silence claims are therefore a brazen truth suppression attempt aimed at the government that funds science in America. Naturalism assumes the non-existence of God in natural reality and requires all interpretations and explanations of evidence to support said assumption. This is WHY each species originates from a prior species (common descent) and not from independent, separate, or special creation (= the power of God operating in reality).
>
> The evidence interpreting requirements of Naturalism are what produced the objective claims of the theory. These claims of FACT describe evolutionary causation as natural, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and a host of other adjectives. Meaning: natural (= non-supernatural); unguided (= invisible Guide not present); undirected (invisible Director not present); unintelligent (= invisible Intelligence not present). God is duly accounted for as KNOWN to be completely absent from evolutionary causation hence God played no role in the production of diversity, past or present. The God-silence or God-neutral claims made by very many Evolutionists is shown to be, like I said, brazen truth suppression. Plantinga, a scholar, has no excuse. The objective facts briefly explicated here are BASIC and RUDIMENTARY. The nature of the facts and logic dictate that Plantinga should know, could know, and does know.
>
> In this context Plantinga maintains the God-neutral or God-silent claim as nonetheless a fact. He rejects each description of evolutionary causation listed above. So Plantinga does in fact accept "evolution" and not evolution. But the fact that Plantinga knows and understands the objective claims of the theory, as seen in Naturalism and corresponding adjectival descriptions, means he knows and understands that evolution was and is the product of Naturalism assumptions.
>
> Specifically the assumptions of Naturalism say the Father of Christ did not create any living thing, past or present; neither did He design any living thing, past or present. Naturalism ALSO says miracles do not occur, especially special creation miracles. So Naturalism, the evidence interpreting philosophy of evolutionary theory, is vehemently anti-Bible----a Book filled with miracle claims from cover to cover.
>

> Given all of these BASIC and RUDIMENTARY facts, and their explanation, none of which are the least bit complicated, a person CANNOT say Christ approves of a theory that explicitly denies His Father creator and designer credit, and a person cannot say Christ led [them] to accept a theory produced by the assumptions and evidence interpreting requirements of Naturalism.

>
> Yet Alvin Plantinga does just that. He argues for the Resurrection and the theory of evolution knowing it was produced by the assumptions of Naturalism.
>
> So we have an egregious contradiction, which dictates the following conclusion:
>
> A person cannot invoke Plantinga a Christian, that is, a follower of Christ in the context of his acceptance and defense of evolutionary theory. To do so then implies Christ approves and has led him to defend a theory that says His Father did not create or design any living thing, past or present. Naturalism/Evolutionary theory says Divine inspiration (= miracle) is completely false. God did not inspire Genesis 1 and 2, the text is man-made.
>
> Romans 1:20 (NIV):
>
> "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
>
> Alvin Plantinga is without excuse.
>
> Ray (Old Earth; Paleyan; species immutabilist)

For the record: one bracket correction added in the text above.

RM

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 12:54:56 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:

> Why Alvin Plantinga is not a real Christian
>
> Sean Dillon, an Atheist, has maintained Alvin Plantinga a Christian based on his long-standing vehement defense of the divinity of Christ and His Resurrection. I understand what Sean is saying. Only a real Christian would defend these miracle claims, and I agree, however.
>

> Plantinga supports and thus endorses the theory of evolution. Plantinga maintains that the theory is God-neutral or God-silent hence the fact allows him to say the Father of Christ created by evolution. But Plantinga, a scholar, is completely and inexcusably wrong. As a scholar he should know, could know, and does know the BASIC facts that the theory of evolution was produced by the assumptions of Naturalism and its evidence interpreting philosophy. (The God-neutral or God-silence claims are therefore a brazen truth suppression attempt aimed at the government that funds science in America.) Naturalism assumes the non-existence of God in natural reality and requires all interpretations and explanations of evidence to support said assumption. This is WHY each species originates from a prior species (common descent) and not from independent, separate, or special creation (= the power of God operating in reality).

>
> The evidence interpreting requirements of Naturalism are what produced the objective claims of the theory. These claims of FACT describe evolutionary causation as natural, unguided, undirected, unintelligent, and a host of other adjectives. Meaning: natural (= non-supernatural); unguided (= invisible Guide not present); undirected (invisible Director not present); unintelligent (= invisible Intelligence not present). God is duly accounted for as KNOWN to be completely absent from evolutionary causation hence God played no role in the production of diversity, past or present. The God-silence or God-neutral claims made by very many Evolutionists is shown to be, like I said, brazen truth suppression. Plantinga, a scholar, has no excuse. The objective facts briefly explicated here are BASIC and RUDIMENTARY. The nature of the facts and logic dictate that Plantinga should know, could know, and does know.
>
> In this context Plantinga maintains the God-neutral or God-silent claim as nonetheless a fact. He rejects each description of evolutionary causation listed above. So Plantinga does in fact accept "evolution" and not evolution. But the fact that Plantinga knows and understands the objective claims of the theory, as seen in Naturalism and corresponding adjectival descriptions, means he knows and understands that evolution was and is the product of Naturalism assumptions.
>
> Specifically the assumptions of Naturalism say the Father of Christ did not create any living thing, past or present; neither did He design any living thing, past or present. Naturalism ALSO says miracles do not occur, especially special creation miracles. So Naturalism, the evidence interpreting philosophy of evolutionary theory, is vehemently anti-Bible----a Book filled with miracle claims from cover to cover.
>
> Given all of these BASIC and RUDIMENTARY facts, and their explanation, none of which are the least bit complicated, a person CANNOT say Christ approves of a theory that explicitly denies His Father creator and designer credit, and a person cannot say Christ led to accept a theory produced by the assumptions and evidence interpreting requirements of Naturalism.
>
> Yet Alvin Plantinga does just that. He argues for the Resurrection and the theory of evolution knowing it was produced by the assumptions of Naturalism.
>
> So we have an egregious contradiction, which dictates the following conclusion:
>
> A person cannot invoke Plantinga a Christian, that is, a follower of Christ in the context of his acceptance and defense of evolutionary theory. To do so then implies Christ approves and has led him to defend a theory that says His Father did not create or design any living thing, past or present. Naturalism/Evolutionary theory says Divine inspiration (= miracle) is completely false. God did not inspire Genesis 1 and 2, the text is man-made.
>
> Romans 1:20 (NIV):
>
> "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
>
> Alvin Plantinga is without excuse.
>
> Ray (Old Earth; Paleyan; species immutabilist)

For the record: one set of parenthesis added to the text above.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 2:54:56 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Why Alvin Plantinga is not a real Christian
>
> Sean Dillon, an Atheist, has maintained Alvin Plantinga a Christian based on his long-standing vehement defense of the divinity of Christ and His Resurrection. I understand what Sean is saying. Only a real Christian would defend these miracle claims, and I agree, however.
>
> Plantinga supports and thus endorses the theory of evolution. Plantinga maintains that the theory is God-neutral or God-silent hence the fact allows him to say the Father of Christ created by evolution. But Plantinga, a scholar, is completely and inexcusably wrong. As a scholar he should know, could know, and does know the BASIC facts that the theory of evolution was produced by the assumptions of Naturalism and its evidence interpreting philosophy.

[snip]

The final sentence above it wrong, and everything that follows is wrong as a result.

It has been pointed out to Ray repeatedly that the world "Naturalism" does not -- in and of itself -- indicate atheism. Naturalism is a blanket term used for various pursuits that concern themselves with the natural, observable world. Only when the naturalism under discussion is metaphysical/ontological naturalism does the term denote the position that the natural is all that exists. Other uses of the term "naturalism," such as artistic or methodological naturalism, include no such position.

As such, the fact that evolutionary biology -- LIKE ALL OTHER SCIENCE -- is methodologically naturalistic does NOT imply or state that no God exists. On the contrary, owing to the stringent requirements of the Scientific Method, it isn't even CAPABLE of making such a declaration. The detailed, logically-airtight reasons for this have also been explained to Ray several time.

This distinction is so "basic and rudimentary", as Ray would put it, that it naturalism (the ontology) and naturalism (the methodology) have separate headings on Wikipedia, which clearly point out this distinction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

This distinction has been made clear from the halls of academia all the way to courts of law. Conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism is a profound error which leads to gravely incorrect arguments, like Ray's.

Ray has repeatedly contended that he could provide a "gazillion" references IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE (that is, in peer reviewed scientific work) to evolution being necessarily "unguided" (or equivalent term), but at present is utterly unwilling to back up that claim with any evidence whatsoever. As such, I contend that this is NOT a "basic or rudimentary fact" of evolutionary theory, but an impression that Ray has gotten from reading popular books ON science, many of which were perhaps written by atheists who have certain opinions ABOUT evolution. That will remain my contention unless or until Ray provides any evidence to the contrary.

TL;DR: Put up or shut up, Ray.

Not that Ray could EVER change his mind... he has FAR too much riding on his misconception being accurate.

In the meantime, the rest of us can rest easy in the knowledge that Ray's paranoid fantasies of a top Christian philosopher lying for the sake of government money are hogwash, and that Plantinga has a sound grasp on the reality of the relationship between science and theism.

[Ray Martinez]

Sean's reply denies two BASIC facts: the pro-Atheism meaning of Naturalism (anti-supernatural) and the fact that evolutionary causation is described accordingly by science as unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. Even Plantinga acknowledged that he rejected these adjectival descriptions found abundantly in scientific literature.

Sean resorts to maintaining that prefix words placed in front of Naturalism negate its pro-Atheism meaning when in fact they do not and cannot do any such thing because that would create an oxymoronic contradiction.

As far as the adjectival descriptions these, like I said, are found in scientific literature including many statements made by doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman here at Talk.Origins.

So Sean, an Atheist, feels compelled to defend Alvin Plantinga by simply repeating Plantinga's false reasons for accepting an evolutionary theory produced entirely by the anti-God assumptions of Naturalism. Said defense of Plantinga by an Atheist is good evidence that Plantinga is not a real Christian because Atheists would never defend or side with a real Christian when the subject is the origin of living things, past and present.

Ray (Protestant; Paleyan; species immutabilist)

[Sean Dillon]

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 6:09:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Sean's reply denies two BASIC facts: the pro-Atheism meaning of Naturalism (anti-supernatural) and the fact that evolutionary causation is described accordingly by science as unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. Even Plantinga acknowledged that he rejected these adjectival descriptions found abundantly in scientific literature.

1. You ignored the fact that I pointed out that the only naturalism that is pro-Atheism is metaphysical/ontological naturalism. It isn't about negation... the word naturalism, on its own, out of context, doesn't HAVE that meaning. Since you seem to be having some trouble with this concept, let me further explain it to you:

"Naturalism," the word itself, has a NUMBER of different meanings, depending on what kind of naturalism you are talking about. Depending on the context, the kind of meaning may be called out explicitly, or may merely be implied. But the OVERALL meaning of "naturalism" is merely "regarding the natural world."

Metaphysical and ontological are descriptors of a branch of philosophy that regards WHAT EXISTS. Therefore, metaphysical ontological naturalism is the position that the natural is all that exists.

Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is NOT about what EXISTS, it is a METHOD... methodological naturalism, as the name suggests, means that science will only STUDY the natural. In fact, it CAN only study the natural, because of the Scientific Method's requirement for falsifiability. Since science cannot STUDY the supernatural, it isn't capable of drawing informed conclusions ABOUT the supernatural, including whether it exists.

2. You keep claiming that it is all over the scientific literature, after having me call bullshit on that one three times already, and you have yet to produce a shred of evidence. Unless you can produce evidence of your claims from the scientific literature (that is, peer reviewed scientific work), your argument here is busted. If you can produce such evidence, I will be happy to discuss it.

In the meantime, there is NOTHING in the Theory of Evolution that precludes the possibility of a God (in one way or another) being an invisible hand, guiding the overall direction(s) of evolution. There is also nothing in the Theory of Evolution that precluded the possibility that God created the initial conditions of the universe, such that He knew how life would arise and change, and that this was the method by which He enacted His Creation. As nothing in the Theory of Evolution precludes these things (and nor, I am prepared to say, does any conclusion in evolutionary biology since), the Theory of Evolution is perfectly compatible with the possibility of theism. Plantinga recognizes this, most of the Christians on THIS site recognize this (as do most of the atheists), prominent Theist and Christian evolutionary biologists recognise this. Only YOU seem to be in the dark on this, and you've constructed quite an elaborate conspiracy theory, when the parsimonous explanation is that you are just wrong.

>
> Sean resorts to maintaining that prefix words placed in front of Naturalism negate its pro-Atheism meaning when in fact they do not and cannot do any such thing because that would create an oxymoronic contradiction.
>
> As far as the adjectival descriptions these, like I said, are found in scientific literature including many statements made by doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman here at Talk.Origins.

Statements on this site, by John or anyone else, are not a part of the scientific literature, you ass.

>
> So Sean, an Atheist, feels compelled to defend Alvin Plantinga by simply repeating Plantinga's false reasons for accepting an evolutionary theory produced entirely by the anti-God assumptions of Naturalism. Said defense of Plantinga by an Atheist is good evidence that Plantinga is not a real Christian because Atheists would never defend or side with a real Christian when the subject is the origin of living things, past and present.

Well there you're very wrong. I full-throatedly defend anyone's right to believe that God is behind life or evolution. I may not agree, but they are entitled to their beliefs. What I'm less patient about is a-holes like you tearing down science because it doesn't conform to your small, rigid, petty, narrow, un-imaginative notions of how God supposedly does business.

>
> Ray (Protestant; Paleyan; species immutabilist)

Sean (Agnostic atheist; defender of science and it metaphysical neutrality)

[Ray Martinez]

I did not say Plantinga lied for the sake of government funding; rather, I said very many Evolutionists suppress the fact that science and evolutionary theory are pro-Atheism for the sake of retaining government funding.

Plantinga is shown to be inexcusably wicked for knowingly accepting an evolutionary theory produced by the assumptions of Naturalism. Plantinga rejects the objective claims of the theory----natural, unguided, undirected----because he recognizes these claims as decisively pro-Atheism.

So Plantinga knows that the theory, the thing itself, is pro-Atheism. He accepts the theory because he cares more about what the secular world thinks of him rather than Christ. And that's the hallmark of a Catholic. They reject biblical creationism while contorting the claims to accommodate evolution. Pure corruption. All for what? Like I said: They care more what the secular world thinks of them rather than Christ.

Ray (Protestant)

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 4:49:54 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 6:09:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Sean's reply denies two BASIC facts: the pro-Atheism meaning of Naturalism (anti-supernatural) and the fact that evolutionary causation is described accordingly by science as unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. Even Plantinga acknowledged that he rejected these adjectival descriptions found abundantly in scientific literature.
>
> 1. You ignored the fact that I pointed out that the only naturalism that is pro-Atheism is metaphysical/ontological naturalism. It isn't about negation... the word naturalism, on its own, out of context, doesn't HAVE that meaning. Since you seem to be having some trouble with this concept, let me further explain it to you:
>
> "Naturalism," the word itself, has a NUMBER of different meanings, depending on what kind of naturalism you are talking about. Depending on the context, the kind of meaning may be called out explicitly, or may merely be implied. But the OVERALL meaning of "naturalism" is merely "regarding the natural world."
>
> Metaphysical and ontological are descriptors of a branch of philosophy that regards WHAT EXISTS. Therefore, metaphysical ontological naturalism is the position that the natural is all that exists.
>
> Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is NOT about what EXISTS, it is a METHOD... methodological naturalism, as the name suggests, means that science will only STUDY the natural. In fact, it CAN only study the natural, because of the Scientific Method's requirement for falsifiability. Since science cannot STUDY the supernatural, it isn't capable of drawing informed conclusions ABOUT the supernatural, including whether it exists.
>
> 2. You keep claiming that it is all over the scientific literature, after having me call bullshit on that one three times already, and you have yet to produce a shred of evidence. Unless you can produce evidence of your claims from the scientific literature (that is, peer reviewed scientific work), your argument here is busted. If you can produce such evidence, I will be happy to discuss it.
>
> In the meantime, there is NOTHING in the Theory of Evolution that precludes the possibility of a God (in one way or another) being an invisible hand, guiding the overall direction(s) of evolution. There is also nothing in the Theory of Evolution that precluded the possibility that God created the initial conditions of the universe, such that He knew how life would arise and change, and that this was the method by which He enacted His Creation. As nothing in the Theory of Evolution precludes these things (and nor, I am prepared to say, does any conclusion in evolutionary biology since), the Theory of Evolution is perfectly compatible with the possibility of theism. Plantinga recognizes this, most of the Christians on THIS site recognize this (as do most of the atheists), prominent Theist and Christian evolutionary biologists recognise this. Only YOU seem to be in the dark on this, and you've constructed quite an elaborate conspiracy theory, when the parsimonous explanation is that you are just wrong.
>
> >
> > Sean resorts to maintaining that prefix words placed in front of Naturalism negate its pro-Atheism meaning when in fact they do not and cannot do any such thing because that would create an oxymoronic contradiction.
> >
> > As far as the adjectival descriptions these, like I said, are found in scientific literature including many statements made by doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman here at Talk.Origins.
>
> Statements on this site, by John or anyone else, are not a part of the scientific literature, you ass.
>

When John Harshman makes a statement about evolutionary theory here at Talk.Origins, in the context of its facticity, the statement can be used as a legitimate scientific reference. And I wish to dwell on the fact that Sean portrays undirected agency as a peripheral and contested concept as opposed to what it actually is: a foundational concept that enjoys unanimous acceptance among biologists since the rise of Darwinism.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 9:19:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 4:49:54 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 6:09:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Sean's reply denies two BASIC facts: the pro-Atheism meaning of Naturalism (anti-supernatural) and the fact that evolutionary causation is described accordingly by science as unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. Even Plantinga acknowledged that he rejected these adjectival descriptions found abundantly in scientific literature.
> >
> > 1. You ignored the fact that I pointed out that the only naturalism that is pro-Atheism is metaphysical/ontological naturalism. It isn't about negation... the word naturalism, on its own, out of context, doesn't HAVE that meaning. Since you seem to be having some trouble with this concept, let me further explain it to you:
> >
> > "Naturalism," the word itself, has a NUMBER of different meanings, depending on what kind of naturalism you are talking about. Depending on the context, the kind of meaning may be called out explicitly, or may merely be implied. But the OVERALL meaning of "naturalism" is merely "regarding the natural world."
> >
> > Metaphysical and ontological are descriptors of a branch of philosophy that regards WHAT EXISTS. Therefore, metaphysical ontological naturalism is the position that the natural is all that exists.
> >
> > Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is NOT about what EXISTS, it is a METHOD... methodological naturalism, as the name suggests, means that science will only STUDY the natural. In fact, it CAN only study the natural, because of the Scientific Method's requirement for falsifiability. Since science cannot STUDY the supernatural, it isn't capable of drawing informed conclusions ABOUT the supernatural, including whether it exists.
> >
> > 2. You keep claiming that it is all over the scientific literature, after having me call bullshit on that one three times already, and you have yet to produce a shred of evidence. Unless you can produce evidence of your claims from the scientific literature (that is, peer reviewed scientific work), your argument here is busted. If you can produce such evidence, I will be happy to discuss it.
> >
> > In the meantime, there is NOTHING in the Theory of Evolution that precludes the possibility of a God (in one way or another) being an invisible hand, guiding the overall direction(s) of evolution. There is also nothing in the Theory of Evolution that precluded the possibility that God created the initial conditions of the universe, such that He knew how life would arise and change, and that this was the method by which He enacted His Creation. As nothing in the Theory of Evolution precludes these things (and nor, I am prepared to say, does any conclusion in evolutionary biology since), the Theory of Evolution is perfectly compatible with the possibility of theism. Plantinga recognizes this, most of the Christians on THIS site recognize this (as do most of the atheists), prominent Theist and Christian evolutionary biologists recognise this. Only YOU seem to be in the dark on this, and you've constructed quite an elaborate conspiracy theory, when the parsimonous explanation is that you are just wrong.
> >
> > >
> > > Sean resorts to maintaining that prefix words placed in front of Naturalism negate its pro-Atheism meaning when in fact they do not and cannot do any such thing because that would create an oxymoronic contradiction.
> > >
> > > As far as the adjectival descriptions these, like I said, are found in scientific literature including many statements made by doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman here at Talk.Origins.
> >
> > Statements on this site, by John or anyone else, are not a part of the scientific literature, you ass.
> >
>
> When John Harshman makes a statement about evolutionary theory here at Talk.Origins, in the context of its facticity, the statement can be used as a legitimate scientific reference.

Nope, sorry, try again... good luck submitting that on an undergrad science paper, let alone as a "legitimate scientific reference" in a peer reviewed study. And that isn't a knock on Mr. Harshman, who may be whip-smart... I haven't met the guy. It does not matter HOW qualified he is, this isn't a peer reviewed outlet, so his opinions as stated here do not constitute reliable evidence of the position of "science" on an issue. Peer review is a central element of the scientific method. The same is true of anything you read on PZ Myers' or Jerry Coyne's blogs. They are highly competent and qualified scientists, and their OPINIONS have value. But when it comes to ACTUAL SCIENCE, only that which is published in peer reviewed publications is part of the "scientific literature."

>And I wish to dwell on the fact that Sean portrays undirected agency as a peripheral and contested concept as opposed to what it actually is: a foundational concept that enjoys unanimous acceptance among biologists since the rise of Darwinism.

"Undirected agency" is a contradiction in terms, btw. But your overall assertion of "unanimous acceptance among biologists" of the ontological undirectedness of evolution is easily batted away by pointing out examples such as (but certainly not restricted to) Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, Joan Roughgarden, etc. NONE of those scientists believes that evolution is utterly unguided by God. And they DON'T HAVE TO, because nothing in the actual science contradicts the possibility that, on some level, God is influencing the process in ways we cannot see.

You have utterly misunderstood actual science, because it serves your worldview to misunderstand science.

IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE ME ON THAT, BRING EVIDENCE NOT ASSERTIONS, YOU SAD LITTLE BITCH.

I have no doubt you will accuse those people of being liars too, but they aren't... your position on this issue is simply delusional.

[Sean Dillon]

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 7:19:55 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 2:09:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 2:54:56 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Why Alvin Plantinga is not a real Christian
> > >
> > > Sean Dillon, an Atheist, has maintained Alvin Plantinga a Christian based on his long-standing vehement defense of the divinity of Christ and His Resurrection. I understand what Sean is saying. Only a real Christian would defend these miracle claims, and I agree, however.
> > >
> > > Plantinga supports and thus endorses the theory of evolution. Plantinga maintains that the theory is God-neutral or God-silent hence the fact allows him to say the Father of Christ created by evolution. But Plantinga, a scholar, is completely and inexcusably wrong. As a scholar he should know, could know, and does know the BASIC facts that the theory of evolution was produced by the assumptions of Naturalism and its evidence interpreting philosophy.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > The final sentence above it wrong, and everything that follows is wrong as a result.
> >
> > It has been pointed out to Ray repeatedly that the world "Naturalism" does not -- in and of itself -- indicate atheism. Naturalism is a blanket term used for various pursuits that concern themselves with the natural, observable world. Only when the naturalism under discussion is metaphysical/ontological naturalism does the term denote the position that the natural is all that exists. Other uses of the term "naturalism," such as artistic or methodological naturalism, include no such position.
> >
> > As such, the fact that evolutionary biology -- LIKE ALL OTHER SCIENCE -- is methodologically naturalistic does NOT imply or state that no God exists. On the contrary, owing to the stringent requirements of the Scientific Method, it isn't even CAPABLE of making such a declaration. The detailed, logically-airtight reasons for this have also been explained to Ray several time.
> >
> > This distinction is so "basic and rudimentary", as Ray would put it, that it naturalism (the ontology) and naturalism (the methodology) have separate headings on Wikipedia, which clearly point out this distinction:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
> >
> > This distinction has been made clear from the halls of academia all the way to courts of law. Conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism is a profound error which leads to gravely incorrect arguments, like Ray's.
> >
> > Ray has repeatedly contended that he could provide a "gazillion" references IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE (that is, in peer reviewed scientific work) to evolution being necessarily "unguided" (or equivalent term), but at present is utterly unwilling to back up that claim with any evidence whatsoever. As such, I contend that this is NOT a "basic or rudimentary fact" of evolutionary theory, but an impression that Ray has gotten from reading popular books ON science, many of which were perhaps written by atheists who have certain opinions ABOUT evolution. That will remain my contention unless or until Ray provides any evidence to the contrary.
> >
> > TL;DR: Put up or shut up, Ray.
> >
> > Not that Ray could EVER change his mind... he has FAR too much riding on his misconception being accurate.
> >
> > In the meantime, the rest of us can rest easy in the knowledge that Ray's paranoid fantasies of a top Christian philosopher lying for the sake of government money are hogwash, and that Plantinga has a sound grasp on the reality of the relationship between science and theism.
> >
>
> I did not say Plantinga lied for the sake of government funding; rather, I said very many Evolutionists suppress the fact that science and evolutionary theory are pro-Atheism for the sake of retaining government funding.

My apologies for misunderstanding your meaning. I gave you credit for the wrong paranoid delusion, and I'm sure that will haunt me.

>
> Plantinga is shown to be inexcusably wicked for knowingly accepting an evolutionary theory produced by the assumptions of Naturalism. Plantinga rejects the objective claims of the theory----natural, unguided, undirected----because he recognizes these claims as decisively pro-Atheism.

He rejects those claims because he (correct) understands that they are NOT claims of the theory. I haven't seen you provide one iota of evidence to the contrary.

PUT. UP. OR. SHUT. UP.

>
> So Plantinga knows that the theory, the thing itself, is pro-Atheism.

No he doesn't, because it isn't. Nothing in science is, nor can it be.

>He accepts the theory because he cares more about what the secular world thinks of him rather than Christ.

No, he accepts the POSSIBILITY of the theory (he is also an advocate of "intelligent design," btw). And he does so because he genuinely does not accept your deeply bullshit view on science generally and evolutionary biology specifically.

>And that's the hallmark of a Catholic. They reject biblical creationism while contorting the claims to accommodate evolution. Pure corruption. All for what? Like I said: They care more what the secular world thinks of them rather than Christ.

Maybe they just have a different idea of what Christ gives them?

Just to be clear... are you claiming that Catholics aren't Christians?
>
> Ray (Protestant)
(and twit)

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 8:49:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 9:19:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 4:49:54 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 6:09:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > Sean's reply denies two BASIC facts: the pro-Atheism meaning of Naturalism (anti-supernatural) and the fact that evolutionary causation is described accordingly by science as unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. Even Plantinga acknowledged that he rejected these adjectival descriptions found abundantly in scientific literature.
> > >
> > > 1. You ignored the fact that I pointed out that the only naturalism that is pro-Atheism is metaphysical/ontological naturalism. It isn't about negation... the word naturalism, on its own, out of context, doesn't HAVE that meaning. Since you seem to be having some trouble with this concept, let me further explain it to you:
> > >
> > > "Naturalism," the word itself, has a NUMBER of different meanings, depending on what kind of naturalism you are talking about. Depending on the context, the kind of meaning may be called out explicitly, or may merely be implied. But the OVERALL meaning of "naturalism" is merely "regarding the natural world."
> > >
> > > Metaphysical and ontological are descriptors of a branch of philosophy that regards WHAT EXISTS. Therefore, metaphysical ontological naturalism is the position that the natural is all that exists.
> > >
> > > Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is NOT about what EXISTS, it is a METHOD... methodological naturalism, as the name suggests, means that science will only STUDY the natural. In fact, it CAN only study the natural, because of the Scientific Method's requirement for falsifiability. Since science cannot STUDY the supernatural, it isn't capable of drawing informed conclusions ABOUT the supernatural, including whether it exists.
> > >
> > > 2. You keep claiming that it is all over the scientific literature, after having me call bullshit on that one three times already, and you have yet to produce a shred of evidence. Unless you can produce evidence of your claims from the scientific literature (that is, peer reviewed scientific work), your argument here is busted. If you can produce such evidence, I will be happy to discuss it.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, there is NOTHING in the Theory of Evolution that precludes the possibility of a God (in one way or another) being an invisible hand, guiding the overall direction(s) of evolution. There is also nothing in the Theory of Evolution that precluded the possibility that God created the initial conditions of the universe, such that He knew how life would arise and change, and that this was the method by which He enacted His Creation. As nothing in the Theory of Evolution precludes these things (and nor, I am prepared to say, does any conclusion in evolutionary biology since), the Theory of Evolution is perfectly compatible with the possibility of theism. Plantinga recognizes this, most of the Christians on THIS site recognize this (as do most of the atheists), prominent Theist and Christian evolutionary biologists recognise this. Only YOU seem to be in the dark on this, and you've constructed quite an elaborate conspiracy theory, when the parsimonous explanation is that you are just wrong.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Sean resorts to maintaining that prefix words placed in front of Naturalism negate its pro-Atheism meaning when in fact they do not and cannot do any such thing because that would create an oxymoronic contradiction.
> > > >
> > > > As far as the adjectival descriptions these, like I said, are found in scientific literature including many statements made by doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman here at Talk.Origins.
> > >
> > > Statements on this site, by John or anyone else, are not a part of the scientific literature, you ass.
> > >
> >
> > When John Harshman makes a statement about evolutionary theory here at Talk.Origins, in the context of its facticity, the statement can be used as a legitimate scientific reference.
>
> Nope, sorry, try again... good luck submitting that on an undergrad science paper, let alone as a "legitimate scientific reference" in a peer reviewed study. And that isn't a knock on Mr. Harshman, who may be whip-smart... I haven't met the guy. It does not matter HOW qualified he is, this isn't a peer reviewed outlet, so his opinions as stated here do not constitute reliable evidence of the position of "science" on an issue. Peer review is a central element of the scientific method. The same is true of anything you read on PZ Myers' or Jerry Coyne's blogs. They are highly competent and qualified scientists, and their OPINIONS have value. But when it comes to ACTUAL SCIENCE, only that which is published in peer reviewed publications is part of the "scientific literature."
>

These comments suggest that ONLY peer reviewed scientific papers contain the objective views and claims of science, which is patently ridiculous. The suggestion excludes all books written by scientists including Darwin's Origin of Species.

> >And I wish to dwell on the fact that Sean portrays undirected agency as a peripheral and contested concept as opposed to what it actually is: a foundational concept that enjoys unanimous acceptance among biologists since the rise of Darwinism.
>
> "Undirected agency" is a contradiction in terms, btw. But your overall assertion of "unanimous acceptance among biologists" of the ontological undirectedness of evolution is easily batted away by pointing out examples such as (but certainly not restricted to) Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, Joan Roughgarden, etc. NONE of those scientists believes that evolution is utterly unguided by God. And they DON'T HAVE TO, because nothing in the actual science contradicts the possibility that, on some level, God is influencing the process in ways we cannot see.
>
> You have utterly misunderstood actual science, because it serves your worldview to misunderstand science.
>
> IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE ME ON THAT, BRING EVIDENCE NOT ASSERTIONS, YOU SAD LITTLE BITCH.
>
> I have no doubt you will accuse those people of being liars too, but they aren't... your position on this issue is simply delusional.
>
>

Sean continues to treat undirected causation as a subjective claim and neutrality as the objective claim. Since undirected causation is the uncontested objective claim found abundantly in scientific literature, Sean's "request" for support can only indicate rhetorical denial of the claim. What is truly sad is the degree a person will stoop to protect an egregiously false claim----God neutral selection, when in fact undirected selection enjoys unanimous scientific support.

Ray

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f6e24617-fa32-4107...@googlegroups.com...

Sigh. We all know. There's nothing that can be done. This has the potential
of lasting for eternity, or as long as Ray keep it going.

As long as a fist fight is out of the question, there is nothing we can do
to settle the argument.World heavyweight champion Vladimir Klitchko tried
lasrt nigh but lost on KO in round 11.
Our 'round 11' will remain a stalemate.

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:299dbc83-fbb4-4525...@googlegroups.com...

(and twat)
>
>

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 12:50:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>The God-neutral or God-silence claims are therefore a brazen truth suppression attempt aimed at the government that funds science in America

Yet again, you remind me of Richard Dawkins - he said much the same
thing in the God Delusion. According to your own reasoning then, the
fact that you and Dawkins agree must make you an atheist.

[...]

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 12:49:53 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 8:49:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 9:19:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 4:49:54 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 6:09:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > Sean's reply denies two BASIC facts: the pro-Atheism meaning of Naturalism (anti-supernatural) and the fact that evolutionary causation is described accordingly by science as unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. Even Plantinga acknowledged that he rejected these adjectival descriptions found abundantly in scientific literature.
> > > >
> > > > 1. You ignored the fact that I pointed out that the only naturalism that is pro-Atheism is metaphysical/ontological naturalism. It isn't about negation... the word naturalism, on its own, out of context, doesn't HAVE that meaning. Since you seem to be having some trouble with this concept, let me further explain it to you:
> > > >
> > > > "Naturalism," the word itself, has a NUMBER of different meanings, depending on what kind of naturalism you are talking about. Depending on the context, the kind of meaning may be called out explicitly, or may merely be implied. But the OVERALL meaning of "naturalism" is merely "regarding the natural world."
> > > >
> > > > Metaphysical and ontological are descriptors of a branch of philosophy that regards WHAT EXISTS. Therefore, metaphysical ontological naturalism is the position that the natural is all that exists.
> > > >
> > > > Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is NOT about what EXISTS, it is a METHOD... methodological naturalism, as the name suggests, means that science will only STUDY the natural. In fact, it CAN only study the natural, because of the Scientific Method's requirement for falsifiability. Since science cannot STUDY the supernatural, it isn't capable of drawing informed conclusions ABOUT the supernatural, including whether it exists.
> > > >
> > > > 2. You keep claiming that it is all over the scientific literature, after having me call bullshit on that one three times already, and you have yet to produce a shred of evidence. Unless you can produce evidence of your claims from the scientific literature (that is, peer reviewed scientific work), your argument here is busted. If you can produce such evidence, I will be happy to discuss it.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime, there is NOTHING in the Theory of Evolution that precludes the possibility of a God (in one way or another) being an invisible hand, guiding the overall direction(s) of evolution. There is also nothing in the Theory of Evolution that precluded the possibility that God created the initial conditions of the universe, such that He knew how life would arise and change, and that this was the method by which He enacted His Creation. As nothing in the Theory of Evolution precludes these things (and nor, I am prepared to say, does any conclusion in evolutionary biology since), the Theory of Evolution is perfectly compatible with the possibility of theism. Plantinga recognizes this, most of the Christians on THIS site recognize this (as do most of the atheists), prominent Theist and Christian evolutionary biologists recognise this. Only YOU seem to be in the dark on this, and you've constructed quite an elaborate conspiracy theory, when the parsimonous explanation is that you are just wrong.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sean resorts to maintaining that prefix words placed in front of Naturalism negate its pro-Atheism meaning when in fact they do not and cannot do any such thing because that would create an oxymoronic contradiction.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as the adjectival descriptions these, like I said, are found in scientific literature including many statements made by doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman here at Talk.Origins.
> > > >
> > > > Statements on this site, by John or anyone else, are not a part of the scientific literature, you ass.
> > > >
> > >
> > > When John Harshman makes a statement about evolutionary theory here at Talk.Origins, in the context of its facticity, the statement can be used as a legitimate scientific reference.
> >
> > Nope, sorry, try again... good luck submitting that on an undergrad science paper, let alone as a "legitimate scientific reference" in a peer reviewed study. And that isn't a knock on Mr. Harshman, who may be whip-smart... I haven't met the guy. It does not matter HOW qualified he is, this isn't a peer reviewed outlet, so his opinions as stated here do not constitute reliable evidence of the position of "science" on an issue. Peer review is a central element of the scientific method. The same is true of anything you read on PZ Myers' or Jerry Coyne's blogs. They are highly competent and qualified scientists, and their OPINIONS have value. But when it comes to ACTUAL SCIENCE, only that which is published in peer reviewed publications is part of the "scientific literature."
> >
>
> These comments suggest that ONLY peer reviewed scientific papers contain the objective views and claims of science, which is patently ridiculous. The suggestion excludes all books written by scientists including Darwin's Origin of Species.

In the present day, that is absolutely true. I will grant that the standards of peer review have changed since Darwin's time, but in his time, publishing his book for critique WAS his way of submitting for peer review.

In modern science though, if it isn't published in a peer reviewed source, it isn't actually science, it is just writing ABOUT science. Writing in non-peer-reviewed sources may be riddled with a scientist's personal (sometimes non-scientific) views.

Even if we stretch the defition of "scientific literature" to include scholarly popular publications (which we shouldn't), posts on an internet forum or blog DEFINITELY do not qualify.

>
>
> > >And I wish to dwell on the fact that Sean portrays undirected agency as a peripheral and contested concept as opposed to what it actually is: a foundational concept that enjoys unanimous acceptance among biologists since the rise of Darwinism.
> >
> > "Undirected agency" is a contradiction in terms, btw. But your overall assertion of "unanimous acceptance among biologists" of the ontological undirectedness of evolution is easily batted away by pointing out examples such as (but certainly not restricted to) Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, Joan Roughgarden, etc. NONE of those scientists believes that evolution is utterly unguided by God. And they DON'T HAVE TO, because nothing in the actual science contradicts the possibility that, on some level, God is influencing the process in ways we cannot see.
> >
> > You have utterly misunderstood actual science, because it serves your worldview to misunderstand science.
> >
> > IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE ME ON THAT, BRING EVIDENCE NOT ASSERTIONS, YOU SAD LITTLE BITCH.
> >
> > I have no doubt you will accuse those people of being liars too, but they aren't... your position on this issue is simply delusional.
> >
> >
>
> Sean continues to treat undirected causation as a subjective claim and neutrality as the objective claim. Since undirected causation is the uncontested objective claim found abundantly in scientific literature, Sean's "request" for support can only indicate rhetorical denial of the claim. What is truly sad is the degree a person will stoop to protect an egregiously false claim----God neutral selection, when in fact undirected selection enjoys unanimous scientific support.

Put up or shut up, Ray. Until you do, your claim is busted.

As I've pointed out: your claim that God-undirected evolution has unanimous scientific support is easily rebutted by pointing out the many Christian scientists -- Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller among them -- who believe that evolution IS directed by God. So... clearly not unanimous.

But hell... you can't even point me to a SINGLE legit scientific source for your claim, so...

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 16:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Sean's reply denies two BASIC facts: the pro-Atheism meaning of Naturalism (anti-supernatural) and the fact that evolutionary causation is described accordingly by science as unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. Even Plantinga acknowledged that he rejected these adjectival descriptions found abundantly in scientific literature.
>
>Sean resorts to maintaining that prefix words placed in front of Naturalism negate its pro-Atheism meaning when in fact they do not and cannot do any such thing because that would create an oxymoronic contradiction.
>
>As far as the adjectival descriptions these, like I said, are found in scientific literature including many statements made by doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman here at Talk.Origins.

You said that you could provide a gazillion scientific sources that
say evolution is unguided yet all you can produce is some guy on
Usenet

You really need to sit back and think about the utter crap you post
and it's possible consequence. You might reflect on the words of St.
Augustine.

"The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but
rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such
opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and
unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they
know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on
our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in
matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal
life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are
filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from
experience and reason."

Mind you. on past performance, you likely regard Augustine too as an
atheist!

[Ray Martinez]

Sean evades what I said about books published by scientists. And the fact of the matter dictates that the claims under consideration here obtain resolve mainly from the history of science. Sean has science existing exclusively in peer reviewed papers. This corpus cannot possibly tell us accurately as to what science claims because the corpus explicates the material evidence and not the claims or the meaning of the material evidence. So Sean, by his own admission, has a stunted view of science, exclusionary of the history or claims and the meaning of the evidence interpreted under an explanatory philosophy. As an important feature of these facts, when the words "evolution" or "natural selection" appear in peer reviewed papers Sean has ASSUMED these do not mean undirected or any other synonym, which is of course the undisputed meaning. This is why we must not exclude other scientific disciplines like the history of science in order to determine what science is actually saying.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 12:14:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Sean evades what I said about books published by scientists. And the fact of the matter dictates that the claims under consideration here obtain resolve mainly from the history of science. Sean has science existing exclusively in peer reviewed papers. This corpus cannot possibly tell us accurately as to what science claims because the corpus explicates the material evidence and not the claims or the meaning of the material evidence. So Sean, by his own admission, has a stunted view of science, exclusionary of the history or claims and the meaning of the evidence interpreted under an explanatory philosophy. As an important feature of these facts, when the words "evolution" or "natural selection" appear in peer reviewed papers Sean has ASSUMED these do not mean undirected or any other synonym, which is of course the undisputed meaning. This is why we must not exclude other scientific disciplines like the history of science in order to determine what science is actually saying.
>
> Ray

Well, as of yet, you haven't provided a single source of ANY kind to substantiate your argument... so far, only a CLAIM that one of the posters on this internet debate board said something.

Tell you what: produce an actual source -- ANY actual source -- and then we can talk about whether than particular source has any validity in telling us "the claims of science." Until you do, you're just evading, and it is transparent.

Put up or shut up, Ray. All this huffing and puffing isn't impressing anyone.

[Jonathan]

On 4/27/2017 2:29 PM, jillery wrote:
> Thanks to Jerry Coyne and his blog Why Evolution Is True:
>
> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/templeton-abandons-pretense-of-rationality-awards-templeton-prize-to-alvin-plantinga-intelligent-design-advocate/>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/meunjro>
>
> Once again, I am exposed to the arguments of yet another dishonest (ie
> annoying) anti-evolutionist. And that's a good thing.
>

> This short 2-minute video presents what appears to be one of
> Plantinga's fundamental lines of reasoning:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Qv8tk9_tM&feature=youtu.be>
>
> I see two fatal flaws with his line of reasoning:
>
> 1. Even if what he says were correct, he's talking about the veracity
> of *beliefs*, not that of naturalism and evolution itself. Reality
> works whether or not one believes in it.
>


And light appears as a wave or a particle depending upon what?

All self-organized systems also display such a duality.

So reality can appear to be different to different observers.
There is no such thing as an objective reality despite
the instinctive desire for such simplicity.



> 2. There's a big gap between absolutely reliable and completely
> unreliable. We know our faculties are unreliable, but are reliable
> enough to recognize they are unreliable. That's why science doesn't
> depend on human faculties alone, but combines them with evidence from
> tools and experimentation.

[Burkhard]

Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 12:49:53 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 8:49:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 9:19:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 4:49:54 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 6:09:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>> Sean's reply denies two BASIC facts: the pro-Atheism meaning of Naturalism (anti-supernatural) and the fact that evolutionary causation is described accordingly by science as unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. Even Plantinga acknowledged that he rejected these adjectival descriptions found abundantly in scientific literature.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. You ignored the fact that I pointed out that the only naturalism that is pro-Atheism is metaphysical/ontological naturalism. It isn't about negation... the word naturalism, on its own, out of context, doesn't HAVE that meaning. Since you seem to be having some trouble with this concept, let me further explain it to you:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Naturalism," the word itself, has a NUMBER of different meanings, depending on what kind of naturalism you are talking about. Depending on the context, the kind of meaning may be called out explicitly, or may merely be implied. But the OVERALL meaning of "naturalism" is merely "regarding the natural world."
>>>>>
>>>>> Metaphysical and ontological are descriptors of a branch of philosophy that regards WHAT EXISTS. Therefore, metaphysical ontological naturalism is the position that the natural is all that exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is NOT about what EXISTS, it is a METHOD... methodological naturalism, as the name suggests, means that science will only STUDY the natural. In fact, it CAN only study the natural, because of the Scientific Method's requirement for falsifiability. Since science cannot STUDY the supernatural, it isn't capable of drawing informed conclusions ABOUT the supernatural, including whether it exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. You keep claiming that it is all over the scientific literature, after having me call bullshit on that one three times already, and you have yet to produce a shred of evidence. Unless you can produce evidence of your claims from the scientific literature (that is, peer reviewed scientific work), your argument here is busted. If you can produce such evidence, I will be happy to discuss it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meantime, there is NOTHING in the Theory of Evolution that precludes the possibility of a God (in one way or another) being an invisible hand, guiding the overall direction(s) of evolution. There is also nothing in the Theory of Evolution that precluded the possibility that God created the initial conditions of the universe, such that He knew how life would arise and change, and that this was the method by which He enacted His Creation. As nothing in the Theory of Evolution precludes these things (and nor, I am prepared to say, does any conclusion in evolutionary biology since), the Theory of Evolution is perfectly compatible with the possibility of theism. Plantinga recognizes this, most of the Christians on THIS site recognize this (as do most of the atheists), prominent Theist and Christian evolutionary biologists recognise this. Only YOU seem to be in the dark on this, and you've constructed quite an elaborate conspiracy theory, when the parsimonous explanation is that you are just wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sean resorts to maintaining that prefix words placed in front of Naturalism negate its pro-Atheism meaning when in fact they do not and cannot do any such thing because that would create an oxymoronic contradiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as the adjectival descriptions these, like I said, are found in scientific literature including many statements made by doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman here at Talk.Origins.
>>>>>
>>>>> Statements on this site, by John or anyone else, are not a part of the scientific literature, you ass.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When John Harshman makes a statement about evolutionary theory here at Talk.Origins, in the context of its facticity, the statement can be used as a legitimate scientific reference.
>>>
>>> Nope, sorry, try again... good luck submitting that on an undergrad science paper, let alone as a "legitimate scientific reference" in a peer reviewed study. And that isn't a knock on Mr. Harshman, who may be whip-smart... I haven't met the guy. It does not matter HOW qualified he is, this isn't a peer reviewed outlet, so his opinions as stated here do not constitute reliable evidence of the position of "science" on an issue. Peer review is a central element of the scientific method. The same is true of anything you read on PZ Myers' or Jerry Coyne's blogs. They are highly competent and qualified scientists, and their OPINIONS have value. But when it comes to ACTUAL SCIENCE, only that which is published in peer reviewed publications is part of the "scientific literature."
>>>
>>
>> These comments suggest that ONLY peer reviewed scientific papers contain the objective views and claims of science, which is patently ridiculous. The suggestion excludes all books written by scientists including Darwin's Origin of Species.
>
> In the present day, that is absolutely true. I will grant that the standards of peer review have changed since Darwin's time, but in his time, publishing his book for critique WAS his way of submitting for peer review.

Some conceptual and historical confusion here that distracts a bit from
the entirely reasonable point you want to make. Peer review, in the
English speaking world, predates Darwin by quite a bit and was well
established by the time he wrote.

To blow (again) the Edinburgh trumpet, in 1731, the preface to the first
volume of "Medical Essays and Observations", published by the Royal
Society of Edinburgh, announced that “memoirs sent by correspondence are
distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are
most versed in these matters”.

And in 1752, the Royal Society set up a committee whose job it was to
ask “any other members of the Society who are knowing and well skilled
in that particular branch of Science that shall happen to be the subject
matter” of an article submitted to the Transactions.

It was however largely restricted to the English speaking world, and
driven by "copyright" (or intellectual precedence) concerns at least as
much as it was by quality assurance. Another major reason was the
structure of the learned societies - the right to publish came with your
membership fee, reviewed were mainly contributions by non-members, a
structure that you still find today, though it is on the decrease. So
with some highly respected journals, not all papers are reviewed equally.

also for these reasons, in continental Europe, the "editor reviewed"
model held sway for much longer, and some of the most prestigious
journals still follow it today. It was only from the 1960s onwards with
the "Anglicization" of the research world that pre-publication peer
review became universally seen as a hallmark of scientific publishing.

Pre- and post publication peer review. That is the really important
issue. Often people (mis)identify peer review with "pre-publication peer
review". But that is only one, and many would argue less important, part
of peer review - and the one with the biggest methodological problems.
Nontransparent, often without right to rebuttal, no agreed standards
(single blind, double blind, open, 2-6 reviewers etc)and these days
simply too many publications submitted to allow a detailed analysis in
most cases.

Much more rigorous in many ways is post-publication peer review - does
the paper withstand public scrutiny. Much more transparent, reason-based
and representative. Which is why increasingly, some very good journals
move away from pre-publication peer review entirely, or do a "light
touch review" and rely instead on post publication platforms such as
PubPeer or PubMedCommons. Others give up th idea altogether, see the
increasing success of platforms such as ArXiv.

So the emphasis on pre-publication peer review might be on its
descendency - and a good thing too, as I argued in a peer reviewed (old
style) paper ;o) (Schafer, B., 2014. Information Quality and Evidence
Law: A New Role for Social Media, Digital Publishing and Copyright Law?.
In The Philosophy of Information Quality (pp. 217-238). Springer
International Publishing.)

> In modern science though, if it isn't published in a peer reviewed source, it isn't actually science, it is just writing ABOUT science. Writing in non-peer-reviewed sources may be riddled with a scientist's personal (sometimes non-scientific) views.

Partly for the reasons above, this is an overreach. There always have
been highly recognized and high quality science journals that did not
follow the peer-review model. And you also exclude this way textbooks
and scholarly monographs that are not peer reviewed in the way papers
are (there is some pre-publication peer review, but it mainly asks about
things like: would you use a book like this in your courses). By that
standard, you'd exclude works like Fisher's "The Genetical Theory of
Natural Selection." or "The Insect Societies" by Edward O. Wilson from
the canon. They are of course extremely important scientific
publications, and indeed, a standard textbook would be the best place
for Ray to source a quote from - they are much more likely to present
the "view of the community" rather than that of the individual author,
the "settled science" - papers almost by definition should be highly
novel and therefore also much more likely turn out wrong.

>
> Even if we stretch the defition of "scientific literature" to include scholarly popular publications (which we shouldn't), posts on an internet forum or blog DEFINITELY do not qualify.

Well, as I said, this might be changing, and for good reasons. The issue
is not so much where the statement comes from, but what the author
thought s/he was doing. It is perfectly possible to use one's blog for
serious scientific discussions and take it as serious as a journal
publication, but I'm pretty certain that none of the participants here,
including John, sees what we do on TO this way.

[Sean Dillon]

Fair points. Since Ray has yet to offer ANYTHING but unsubstantiated claims and distain, the point remains moot at this juncture.

Offer stands, Ray: submit ANY source to back up your claims, and we can discuss its legitimacy as representing "the position of science."

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:oe6u30$sng$1...@dont-email.me...

> Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 12:49:53 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 8:49:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 9:19:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 4:49:54 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 6:09:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>>> Sean's reply denies two BASIC facts: the pro-Atheism meaning of Naturalism (anti-supernatural) and the fact that evolutionary causation is described accordingly by science as unguided, undirected, and unintelligent. Even Plantinga acknowledged that he rejected these adjectival descriptions found abundantly in scientific literature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. You ignored the fact that I pointed out that the only naturalism that is pro-Atheism is metaphysical/ontological naturalism. It isn't about negation... the word naturalism, on its own, out of context, doesn't HAVE that meaning. Since you seem to be having some trouble with this concept, let me further explain it to you:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Naturalism," the word itself, has a NUMBER of different meanings, depending on what kind of naturalism you are talking about. Depending on the context, the kind of meaning may be called out explicitly, or may merely be implied. But the OVERALL meaning of "naturalism" is merely "regarding the natural world."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Metaphysical and ontological are descriptors of a branch of philosophy that regards WHAT EXISTS. Therefore, metaphysical ontological naturalism is the position that the natural is all that exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is NOT about what EXISTS, it is a METHOD... methodological naturalism, as the name suggests, means that science will only STUDY the natural. In fact, it CAN only study the natural, because of the Scientific Method's requirement for falsifiability. Since science cannot STUDY the supernatural, it isn't capable of drawing informed conclusions ABOUT the supernatural, including whether it exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. You keep claiming that it is all over the scientific literature, after having me call bullshit on that one three times already, and you have yet to produce a shred of evidence. Unless you can produce evidence of your claims from the scientific literature (that is, peer reviewed scientific work), your argument here is busted. If you can produce such evidence, I will be happy to discuss it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the meantime, there is NOTHING in the Theory of Evolution that precludes the possibility of a God (in one way or another) being an invisible hand, guiding the overall direction(s) of evolution. There is also nothing in the Theory of Evolution that precluded the possibility that God created the initial conditions of the universe, such that He knew how life would arise and change, and that this was the method by which He enacted His Creation. As nothing in the Theory of Evolution precludes these things (and nor, I am prepared to say, does any conclusion in evolutionary biology since), the Theory of Evolution is perfectly compatible with the possibility of theism. Plantinga recognizes this, most of the Christians on THIS site recognize this (as do most of the atheists), prominent Theist and Christian evolutionary biologists recognise this. Only YOU seem to be in the dark on this, and you've constructed quite an elaborate conspiracy theory, when the parsimonous explanation is that you are just wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sean resorts to maintaining that prefix words placed in front of Naturalism negate its pro-Atheism meaning when in fact they do not and cannot do any such thing because that would create an oxymoronic contradiction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as the adjectival descriptions these, like I said, are found in scientific literature including many statements made by doctor of evolutionary biology John Harshman here at Talk.Origins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Statements on this site, by John or anyone else, are not a part of the scientific literature, you ass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When John Harshman makes a statement about evolutionary theory here at Talk.Origins, in the context of its facticity, the statement can be used as a legitimate scientific reference.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, sorry, try again... good luck submitting that on an undergrad science paper, let alone as a "legitimate scientific reference" in a peer reviewed study. And that isn't a knock on Mr. Harshman, who may be whip-smart... I haven't met the guy. It does not matter HOW qualified he is, this isn't a peer reviewed outlet, so his opinions as stated here do not constitute reliable evidence of the position of "science" on an issue. Peer review is a central element of the scientific method. The same is true of anything you read on PZ Myers' or Jerry Coyne's blogs. They are highly competent and qualified scientists, and their OPINIONS have value. But when it comes to ACTUAL SCIENCE, only that which is published in peer reviewed publications is part of the "scientific literature."
>>>>
>>>
>>> These comments suggest that ONLY peer reviewed scientific papers contain the objective views and claims of science, which is patently ridiculous. The suggestion excludes all books written by scientists including Darwin's Origin of Species.
>>
>> In the present day, that is absolutely true. I will grant that the standards of peer review have changed since Darwin's time, but in his time, publishing his book for critique WAS his way of submitting for peer review.
>

Apparently not his only way:

"Darwin's only paper in Phil. Trans., the snappily titled Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and of Other Parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an Attempt to Prove That They Are of Marine Origin[19] (1837) describes remarkable geological formations in the Scottish Highlands, and offers an explanation for their formation based on similar features he had seen at Coquimbo in Chile while on the Beagle. They were subsequently explained by French geologist Louis Agassiz."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society

By the way, ALL books can be said to be "submitted for peer review".

[Sean Dillon]

As I agreed with Burk, my comment may have been overreach. That said, it isn't "anything goes." Comments on an internet debate board likely don't represent a meaningful part of the "scientific literature."

My offer to Ray stands... I encourage him to present ANY source that supports his view that it is the unanimous position of evolutionary biology that God may not be the cause "behind" evolution. If he does, we can then have a reasoned conversation about why it does or does not represent the "views of science" on the issue.

[jillery]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:41:08 -0400, Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/27/2017 2:29 PM, jillery wrote:
>> Thanks to Jerry Coyne and his blog Why Evolution Is True:
>>
>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/templeton-abandons-pretense-of-rationality-awards-templeton-prize-to-alvin-plantinga-intelligent-design-advocate/>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/meunjro>
>>
>> Once again, I am exposed to the arguments of yet another dishonest (ie
>> annoying) anti-evolutionist. And that's a good thing.
>>
>> This short 2-minute video presents what appears to be one of
>> Plantinga's fundamental lines of reasoning:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Qv8tk9_tM&feature=youtu.be>
>>
>> I see two fatal flaws with his line of reasoning:
>>
>> 1. Even if what he says were correct, he's talking about the veracity
>> of *beliefs*, not that of naturalism and evolution itself. Reality
>> works whether or not one believes in it.
>>
>
>
>And light appears as a wave or a particle depending upon what?

Whatever you think it depends on, it doesn't depend on beliefs, or
even consciousness. Apparently you're confused about what physicists
mean by "observed". It means that it's impossible even in principle
to record quantum phenomena without interfering with it. You're
reading too many woo pamphlets.

[Ray Martinez]

CHRONOLOGY and CONTEXT:

Sean identified himself as an Atheist UNTIL he realized in debates here at Talk.Origins that very many scholars assert science Agnostic or neutral or silent about God. THEN Sean identified himself as an "Agnostic-Atheist," which in this context is an ad hoc claim and/or argument, made up on the spot for a special purpose. Sean was then told his duality claim is logically invalid, meaning impossible because a thing cannot be two different things at the same time. THEN Sean dredged up a quote from a credentialed person that said one can be a such at the same time. Sean was then told that credentials do not alleviate the contradiction----that he and his source advocated an illogical and thus false claim.

The facts explained briefly in the preceding paragraph support my on-going claim that persons who advocate evolution are brazenly dishonest AND deluded with no awareness of the fact. Even after being told twice a thing cannot be some other thing at the same time, Sean THOUGHT if a scholar said it then no contradiction exists. Sean doesn't understand that duality is impossible, and if a scholar advocates a violation of said logic then the scholar is wrong or deluded as well. This is precisely WHY Schrodinger's cat and the wave function has stymied physics for decades. The cat cannot be both dead and alive at the same time yet the wave function says exactly that. The fact that Sean was NOT even slightly embarrassed about his ad hoc duality claim, even after being told of its impossibility, clearly shows the degree of ignorance and delusion Sean's mind is suffering from. A cannot be A, and not A, at the same time, is how natural reality exists, accepted by all except a handful of kooks, which no one is not obligated to acknowledge or account for. When A can be A, and not A, at the same time, then the supernatural is present (see the Doctrine of the Incarnation as well). These are RUDIMENTARY claims of facts.

POINTS:

With all this said, Sean, who claimed Atheism at one point, as I pointed out, now says the position of science is not unguided or undirected causation. Imagine that! An Atheist who is suddenly denying undirected causation. Again, Sean's denial supports our claim that Atheist-Evolutionists are brazenly dishonest people. We have always said these persons must be watched and called out for their brazen lies.

Now Sean, in the quotation he has written above, claims scientist, university biology teacher, and Christian author Kenneth R. Miller accepts directed evolution. Utterly ridiculous.

Ken Miller: "Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected" ("Finding Darwin's God" 1999:244; Harper Collins, New York, New York).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> The facts explained briefly in the preceding paragraph support my on-going claim that persons who advocate evolution are brazenly dishonest AND deluded with no awareness of the fact. Even after being told twice a thing cannot be some other thing at the same time, Sean THOUGHT if a scholar said it then no contradiction exists. Sean doesn't understand that duality is impossible, and if a scholar advocates a violation of said logic then the scholar is wrong or deluded as well. This is precisely WHY Schrodinger's cat and the wave function has stymied physics for decades. The cat cannot be both dead and alive at the same time yet the wave function says exactly that. The fact that Sean was NOT even slightly embarrassed about his ad hoc duality claim, even after being told of its impossibility, clearly shows the degree of ignorance and delusion Sean's mind is suffering from. A cannot be A, and not A, at the same time, is how natural reality exists, accepted by all except a handful of kooks, which no one is [....] obligated to acknowledge or account for. When A can be A, and not A, at the same time, then the supernatural is present (see the Doctrine of the Incarnation as well). These are RUDIMENTARY claims of facts.

>
> POINTS:
>
> With all this said, Sean, who claimed Atheism at one point, as I pointed out, now says the position of science is not unguided or undirected causation. Imagine that! An Atheist who is suddenly denying undirected causation. Again, Sean's denial supports our claim that Atheist-Evolutionists are brazenly dishonest people. We have always said these persons must be watched and called out for their brazen lies.
>
> Now Sean, in the quotation he has written above, claims scientist, university biology teacher, and Christian author Kenneth R. Miller accepts directed evolution. Utterly ridiculous.
>
> Ken Miller: "Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected" ("Finding Darwin's God" 1999:244; Harper Collins, New York, New York).
>
> Ray

For the record: deleted one word in the text above via [....]

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

When did this become about me, and not about the actual ideas under discussion? This is classic ad hom, Ray, and a transparent distraction.

For the record, I am an atheist, in that I do not believe that God exists. I also recognize that this is just my personal belief, and I cannot prove it. There is nothing inherently contradictory about this. I tend to refer to this as "agnostic atheism," but if my usage of that terminology offends your sensibilities, I invite you to ignore it, and focus on the substance of my views instead. The substance of my views, not the label, is the thing that matters.

I also recognize that while I may have opinions on the subject of God's existence, science does not.

> Now Sean, in the quotation he has written above, claims scientist, university biology teacher, and Christian author Kenneth R. Miller accepts directed evolution. Utterly ridiculous.
>
> Ken Miller: "Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected" ("Finding Darwin's God" 1999:244; Harper Collins, New York, New York).
>
> Ray

AH! At last! Substantiation! Thank you, Ray. Was that so hard? I don't have ready access to the full text, so let me see if I can track it down. I'd like to have a fuller understand of the context of that quote before responding.

[Martin Harran]

Not quite quote mining but Creationists love quoting that sentence on
its own. Miller was not taking God out of the equation as is clear in
the sentences that follow that sentence:

"Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected.
Even if God can intervene in nature, why should He when nature can do
a perfectly fine job of achieving His aim all by itself? It was God
after all who chose the universal constants that made life possible.
The notion that God had to act quickly and directly to produce us
contradicts not only the scientific evidence of higher species arose,
but even a strictly theological reading of history."

It is actually worth reading the whole section that includes that part
as he highlights some of the theological issues that are raised by the
rejection of evolution; here it is in ful (apologies for any typos
reulting from using voice dictation):


Finding Darwins' God - P243-247
=======================================

TAKING THE SCENIC ROUTE

"I know that God didn't use evolution to produce us," the parent of a
high school student once told me, "because it would have taken too
long." If God's ultimate purpose was to produce human beings, then why
would he have fooled around with the process that took billions of
years? As easy as it might be to answer an argument based simply on
the notion that God (who is eternal) must have been in a hurry, let's
extended a bit. Gould has fashioned similar arguments based on his
analysis of the nature of revolutionary change over the epochs of
geological time. He believes that a proper understanding of natural
history undermines any species-based conceit that animals stand at the
inevitable pinnacle of life:

<Gould>
"But the real enigma-at least with respect to our parochial concerns
about the progress of adaptability of our own lineage-surrounds the
origin and early history of animals. If life had always been hankering
to reach a pinnacle of expression as the animal kingdom, then organic
history seemed to be in no hurry to initiate this ultimate phase.
About five sixths of life's history had passed before animals made
their first appearance in the fossil record some 600 million years
ago."
</Gould>

We are animals. And if animal life was to be the chosen vessel from
which its ultimate expression, humanity, was to spring forth, then why
did most of the Earth's history pass without it? If the 4.5 billion
years of Earth's history were represented as a single 24-hour day,
then animals would appear only in the last three hours and 15 minutes.
According to Gould, that seems pretty late in animals were ultimate
and inevitable. If the purpose of the whole process was to produce our
species, as my friend implied, shouldn't we be bothered by the fact
that human beings arose only in the last 38 seconds?

If you find this reasoning appealing, keep going. Even the immensities
of geological time dwindle against the age of the universe. How are
the heavy elements of the universe produced? By 10 or 15 billion years
of cooking in the interiors of stars which must then collapse and
explode to throw them into space when they become available to form
secondary stars, like our Sun; and planets, like the earth. Now we
really look like an afterthought, don't we, if indeed we are a thought
at all!

In the view of my friend, who *knows* that creating us was God's
intention from the beginning, such facts are enough to rule out
evolution itself. But why should they? Evolution is a natural process,
and natural processes are undirected. Even if God can intervene in
nature, why should He when nature can do a perfectly fine job of
achieving His aim all by itself? It was God after all who chose the
universal constants that made life possible. The notion that God had
to act quickly and directly to produce us contradicts not only the
scientific evidence of higher species arose, but even a strictly
theological reading of history. Why should so many nonhuman species
have preceded us on this cloud? Good question. We might just as well
ask why so many human civilisations preceded our own. We could ask why
God, if He was interested in all the peoples of the world, first
revealed himself only to a few desert tribes in the middle east. And
if He was interested in redeeming *all* people from their sins, why
did He allow scores of generations to pass unsaved before He sent His
divine son?

If we are sure enough of the creator starts to know that He would have
made our species by a more direct route, then what are we to make of
the highly indirect routes that lead to modern civilisations,
languages, and even our personal lives? What was God's purpose in
allowing evolution to produce the great dinosaurs of the Jurassic?
Beats me. But I am equally clueless with respect to God's purpose in
the Mayas, the Toltecs and the other great civilisations of the
Americas rose and fell without ever being exposed to His word. To
demand that a person of faith account for each and every event in
human history and natural history is to demand the impossible-that
they know every detail of God's actions.

Whatever God's characteristics, impatience is not one of them. A
genuine believer trusts not only in the reality of the divine, but
also in his wisdom, and sees history indirect, comic, and tragic, as
the unfolding of His plan. There is no religious justification for
demanding that the Creator hold to a schedule, follow a defined
pathway, or do things exactly according to our expectations. To God,
our thousand years are as a twinkling, and there is no reason to
believe that our appearance on this planet was for Him anything other
than right on time.

=======================

[Mark Isaak]

A trivium, because it is fun and almost halfway relevant: For one math
theorem, its proof was first published on an episode of the series
"Futurama".

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Burkhard]

ah yes, the mind swapping one. Also, if you want to have a theorem named
after you, some colleagues of mine have designed an automated theorem
finder where you can buy a "vanity theorem" :o)
http://www.ed.ac.uk/informatics/news-events/recentnews/theorem

[J. J. Lodder]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
[snip]

> ah yes, the mind swapping one. Also, if you want to have a theorem named
> after you, some colleagues of mine have designed an automated theorem
> finder where you can buy a "vanity theorem" :o)
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/informatics/news-events/recentnews/theorem

Reminds of a remark by Imre Lakatos,
about how cheap generalisations can be,

Jan

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 12:21:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>Ken Miller: "Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected" ("Finding Darwin's God" 1999:244; Harper Collins, New York, New York).

And just two sentences later he says "It was God after all who chose

the universal constants that made life possible."

Yet according to your logic, he is a brazen lying atheist. That is a
perfect example of how ludicrous your line of reasoning is.

[Sean Dillon]

Martin, thanks for tracking that down, and for making the essential point about it.

To whit, Ray: I accept the correction that Miller does not see evolution as a directed process, IN THE SENSE OF DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION. I would point out that this book is specifically a book about Miller's PERSONAL views and journey, so I think it would be tough to defend the position that this indicates scientific orthodoxy on this point.

More importantly, Miller still believes that God set things in motion SUCH THAT His desired outcome was bound to occur. So while Miller might not use this terminology, I think it is fair to say that Miller would agree that God "directed" life and the universe in the same way that a baseball pitcher "directs" a ball. He believes that God set things going in a particular direction, putting the right "spin" on initial conditions, such that he doesn't have constantly manipulate his pitch all the way to the plate. Miller's views preserve a huge and important place for the Will and Actions of God. ... It just isn't the same place that YOU'D like reserved for God.

[Rolf]

I don't think science boks, especially later than 19th century are of much
interest to Ray.

Here is a list of the books still in my library; I also have given away many
not listed here:
Richard Fortey LIFE, An Unauthorised Biography.

Ian Wilson Before The Flood.

John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas The First Chimpanzee. (Fascinating read
about the research done by Vincent Sarich)

Jeffrey K. McKee The Riddled Chain.

Iris Fry The Emergence of Life on
Earth.

Stuart Kauffman At Home in the Universe.

M. Mitchell Waldrop Complexity - The Emerging Science

at the Edge of Order
and Chaos.

Sean Carroll The Big Picture - On the
Origins of Life.

DouglasH. Erwin Extinction - How Life on Earth
Nearly Ended.

250 Million Years ago.

Barbara J. Sivertsen The Parting of the Sea.

William F. Loomis Life As It Is

Neil Shubin Your Inner Fish

Elaine Morgan The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time
Richard Dawkins The God Delusion
Gary Zukaw, The Dancing Wu Li Masters - An
Overviev of The New Physics (1979)
And the best and most beautiful of them all:
Endless Forms Most Beuatiful by Sean B. Carroll
(I have of course read many, many more, including this "gem":
Darwins Black Box, Michael Behe)

What have you got, Ray? (Or read?)

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:44:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:04:55 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 11:29:56 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > > > Thanks to Jerry Coyne and his blog Why Evolution Is True:
> > > >
> > > > <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/templeton-abandons-pretense-of-rationality-awards-templeton-prize-to-alvin-plantinga-intelligent-design-advocate/>
> > > >
> > > > <http://tinyurl.com/meunjro>
> > > >
> > > > Once again, I am exposed to the arguments of yet another dishonest (ie
> > > > annoying) anti-evolutionist. And that's a good thing.
> > > >
> > >

> > > What exactly makes Plantinga dishonest?
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> >
> > Misspelled his name, added the correction above.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Ray-
>
> I'd like to share with you this quote from Plantinga:
>
> "...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God."
>

Imagine that! Plantinga implies Naturalism a philosophical add-on, when in fact it is an undisputed fact that Naturalism is the interpretive philosophy of evolutionary theory. So it cannot be an add-on. Plantinga is creating dishonest excuses in order to accept a theory all because he wants to be accepted by the secular world. Evolution via Naturalism makes explicit pro-Atheism pronouncements about God. If Plantinga was a real Christian he would accept enthusiastically biblical creationism, and he would not have won the Templeton prize. Every honest scholar knows evolution is a product of Naturalism, the fact is undisputed, yet our honest "Christian" scholar treats the fact as an add-on, that is non-foundational. Plantinga is a premeditated liar.

Ray


> I'd like to call your especial attention to that last sentence: "Like science in general, it [evolutionary theory] makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God."
>
> Since you have called me a "brazen liar" for expressing EXACTLY that same view, I can only imagine that you must also find Plantinga dishonest, yes?

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:44:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:04:55 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 11:29:56 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>>>> Thanks to Jerry Coyne and his blog Why Evolution Is True:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/templeton-abandons-pretense-of-rationality-awards-templeton-prize-to-alvin-plantinga-intelligent-design-advocate/>
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/meunjro>
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, I am exposed to the arguments of yet another dishonest (ie
>>>>> annoying) anti-evolutionist. And that's a good thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What exactly makes Plantinga dishonest?
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>>
>>> Misspelled his name, added the correction above.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Ray-
>>
>> I'd like to share with you this quote from Plantinga:
>>
>> "...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God."
>>
>
> Imagine that! Plantinga implies Naturalism a philosophical add-on, when in fact it is an undisputed fact that Naturalism is the interpretive philosophy of evolutionary theory.

And once again you confuse methodological naturalism fro the ontological
naturalism that Plantiga talks about.

Methodological naturalism gives us e.g. as a law that

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"

Note that the law does not mention any deities or other supernatural
entities. It also does not deny that there are such entities.

This means that you can consistently "add on" metaphysical naturalism in
the form of a "totality closure" (David J. Chalmers and Frank Jackson.
Conceptual analysis and reductive explanation. The Philosophical Review,
110:315–361, 2001 - or this paper by my sometime collaborator Stephan
Leuenberger here http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/93863/7/93863.pdf):

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction "and that's
all that exists"".

And you can equally add on consistently a supernatural entity, a.g.

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction "and they are
caused by two little demons and angels pushing each other"

or a more conventional theistic add on

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction "and that's
how god designed the universe""

In all three cases, the "and...." are metaphysical add-ons that go
beyond what science says. They are all consistent with our current best
scientific theories but mutually inconsistent.

So it cannot be an add-on. Plantinga is creating dishonest excuses in
order to accept a theory all because he wants to be accepted by the
secular world. Evolution via Naturalism makes explicit pro-Atheism
pronouncements about God.

so you say, but consistently fail to back it up

> If Plantinga was a real Christian he would accept enthusiastically biblical creationism, and he would not have won the Templeton prize. Every honest scholar knows evolution is a product of Naturalism, the fact is undisputed,

So far, the only one who claims this is you and you failed abysmally to
substantiate that claim.

[Sean Dillon]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 12:24:53 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:44:53 PM UTC-7, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:04:55 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 11:29:56 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> > > > > Thanks to Jerry Coyne and his blog Why Evolution Is True:
> > > > >
> > > > > <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/templeton-abandons-pretense-of-rationality-awards-templeton-prize-to-alvin-plantinga-intelligent-design-advocate/>
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://tinyurl.com/meunjro>
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, I am exposed to the arguments of yet another dishonest (ie
> > > > > annoying) anti-evolutionist. And that's a good thing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What exactly makes Plantinga dishonest?
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > > >
> > >
> > > Misspelled his name, added the correction above.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Ray-
> >
> > I'd like to share with you this quote from Plantinga:
> >
> > "...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God."
> >
>
> Imagine that! Plantinga implies Naturalism a philosophical add-on, when in fact it is an undisputed fact that Naturalism is the interpretive philosophy of evolutionary theory. So it cannot be an add-on. Plantinga is creating dishonest excuses in order to accept a theory all because he wants to be accepted by the secular world. Evolution via Naturalism makes explicit pro-Atheism pronouncements about God. If Plantinga was a real Christian he would accept enthusiastically biblical creationism, and he would not have won the Templeton prize. Every honest scholar knows evolution is a product of Naturalism, the fact is undisputed, yet our honest "Christian" scholar treats the fact as an add-on, that is non-foundational. Plantinga is a premeditated liar.
>
> Ray

Still confusing methodological with ontological. Earth to Ray: only ONTOLOGICAL naturalism implies atheism, and science is NOT ontologically naturalistic. "Methodological" doesn't "negate" the meaning of naturalism, because atheism was never intrinsic to the meaning OF naturalism, since atheism is only an element of ONE SPECIFIC KIND of naturalism.

Your entire viewpoint is built on a mountain of BS. Science is NOT built upon or interpreted via ontological naturalism.

[J. J. Lodder]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ken Miller: "Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are
> undirected" ("Finding Darwin's God" 1999:244; Harper Collins, New York,
> New York).

So Ken Miller doesn't understand statistical mechanics.

So what?

Jan

[Rolf]

I don't think science boks, especially later than 19th century, are of much

interest to Ray.

Here is a list of the books still in my library; I also have given away many
not listed here:

Richard Fortey LIFE, An Unauthorised Biography.

Ian Wilson Before The Flood.

John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas The First Chimpanzee. (A
fascinating read about the research done by VincentSarich)

(I have of course read many, many more, including this "gem" on my shelf:

[Rolf]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c57cc61-30f3-4a53...@googlegroups.com...

>> > just as such-apart from philosophical or theological add-ons-doesn't

AFAICT, Ray says "Every honest scholar knows evolution is a product of
Naturalism." Further, according to Ray, Naturalism = Atheism.
Ergo, all supporters of evolution are atheists, hellbound. Heaven must be a
pretty boring place. Just imagine who we'll meet there. Hell is where the
action is. Looking forward to see you all there.

[Earle Jones27]

*
"Heaven for climate. Hell for company."

--Mark Twain
earle
*

[J. J. Lodder]

Il ne connaisait pas les autres,

Jan