Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Tim <tpi.hormel@comcast.net>
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 08:54:24 EDT

janice matchett:
>Tim wrote: "I was not describing the creation of the universe
>but the development of life on Earth about 10 billion years
>afterwards. I do not think Alvin Plantiga maintains that the
>separate *creation of species* (or 'kinds') is a necessary
>explanation for the pattern of life observed."
>
>Sorry if I misunderstood you. I'm trying to work and keep
>up with email as I go at the moment. Does this fit better?:
>
>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm
>Methodological Naturalism ~ Alvin Plantinga

Well, not quite. I said earlier that I didn't think special creation of
species / kinds was a necessary conclusion based on the data, meaning
that the data is not compelling for that mode of species appearance.
That's an evaluation of the data. As I mentioned in an ealier post, I
recognize that others don't it that way. Then you posted the references
to Plantinga's philosophical works that dealt with ideas like
"necessary" first causes. "Necessary" in that case is of the
philosophical variety, in the sense that it logically required. It was
in that sense that I answered that Plantinga doesn't hold that there is
an inherent philosophical requirement for separate creation of species.
I should have been more careful about the change in meaning. I knew that
Alvin doesn't think some parts of evolution happened but I don't think
he claims that it couldn't, from a philosophical standpoint (which the
latest article suggests).

Regards,
Tim I
Received on Sat Aug 6 08:56:51 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 06 2005 - 08:56:52 EDT