[Cross-posted over at the evangelical outpost]
I'm reminded of a silly, sarcastic post over at IDtheFuture where Paul Nelson tried to ironically show that simply negating a statement shouldn't change its epistemological status. I always had a nagging suspicion he was wrong, and now I see why.
Contrast these statements:
(1) A designer intentionally designed creatures. (Scientific, according to Nelson, Dembski, Behe, et. al.)
~ (1), or, It is not the case that a designer intentionally designed creatures.
(Outside the bounds of science, according to Plantinga)
Hey, presto! Magic is indeed possible, thanks to the tilde.
1 comment:
In all fairness, I don't think Al would say (1) is scientific either. The tension here seems to be between Plantinga and the ID folk, not any internal inconsistency in either of their respective positions.
Post a Comment