Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:25, 26 May 2009

This article was nominated for deletion on October 6, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep and remove any WP:OR.

Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic / Religion Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Logic Philosophy of religion

Archives

/Archive 01 — October 2006 –

EAAN is considered to be part of the intelligent design movement's attack on naturalism by...

• Robert T. Pennock, Branden Fitelson, Elliott Sober, Michael Ruse (also in The Cultures of Creationism) & Evan Fales. (Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics)
• Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross (Creationism's Trojan Horse)

I think that list's lengthy enough not to require a listing of who considers it. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the source and couldn't find any statement concerning the nature of EAAN or its relation to ID in this book. Since Misplaced Pages requires valid sources we need the pages where this is noted. A mere interpretation would not be enough clearly. Since I don't see any connection of EAAN and ID, this seems to be your job. Please add the necessary information.

--Student of philosophy (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of material on EAAN in a book on "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics" is clear indication that the authors of the material and the editor of the book considered EAAN to be part of ID. The claim is cited to the chapter containing this material. What you "don't see" appears to be the result of wilful blindness, so I don't really see any point in me discussing this any further with you. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Theistic evolution is also included in the book, yet it is not related to ID in the sense required by the Wikiproject. Until you provide a quote that clarifies why EAAN was included or how it is related to the topic of the book, your conclusion seems to be original research.--Student of philosophy (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruse

But since you point this out I'd think about cutting or deleting the passage on Ruse. I reckon there have been around 40 peer reviewed articles on EAAN and about 12 have been answered by Plantinga. Many of them were written by famous philosophers like Fodor, Alston, Merricks and O'Connor. And among them were also philosophers of science and biology like Ramsey to whom Plantinga responded. Ruse contribution doesn't stand out in those ranks and hasn't been answered by Plantinga (or anyone else afaik). I think we could replace him with Tooley 2008 to get a more recent and better known article. Also Tooleys answer is a lot more penetrating and more to the point which could be interesting for the readers. What's your opinion on this?--Student of philosophy

1. If you want to get 'discussion' of an issue for which you are templating the article, then don't stick it in the middle of a thread on an unrelated issue.
2. Ruse is one of the more prominent philosophers of science working on the evo/creo issue -- so is a relevant view to discussing an argument, from a creationist philosopher, on why evolution is a 'refuter' for philosophical naturalism.
3. From what I can tell, there's been considerable back-and-forth on this and/or related issues between Ruse & Plantinga.
4. If you want to include other critical discussion of the EAAN, as well as or instead of existing material, then you're free to propose them (with full citation, proposed text and argument for their prominence)

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I'd be interested in the back and forth between the two since Ruse seems to be taking EAAN as an argument against evolution. Can you give any source for this?
2. It may be that Ruse is famous for his work in the evo/crea debate but I don't see how this would make him stand out among the people who have answered Plantingas argument. If it is for his competence in philosophy of science, then I think there are more prominent and challenging answers available. Right now it seems like his answer is more notable than Fodors, Alstons, Tooleys (which is not mentioned at all) and Merricks which is misleading.--Student of philosophy (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1. No, I can't. I've just seen it alluded to in reading up on the matter.
2. "If you want to include other critical discussion of the EAAN, as well as or instead of existing material, then you're free to propose them (with full citation, proposed text and argument for their prominence)"

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately truth is not enough for wikipedia, so you'll have to come up with sources to justify the prominent position and space given to Ruse while the central publication on EAAN including Merrick, Fodor, Alston and others is that short. If you can't provide them please cut down the passage yourself, since you seem to know him.--Student of philosophy (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ummm .... NO! You have made the accusation of WP:UNDUE weight, so it is up to you to support that accusation. The WP:BURDEN is on the adding-editor to ensure that material added is verifiable. Once that burden has been met, the burden is on the accuser to prove that the material is in violation of some other policy, if they want the material removed thereafter. (See also WP:AGF.) Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"The WP:BURDEN is on the adding-editor to ensure that material added is verifiable. Once that burden has been met, the burden is on the accuser to prove that the material is in violation of some other policy, if they want the material removed thereafter. (See also WP:AGF.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)" You added the passage without any discussion, so you've never met the burden of the adding-editor. Else everybody could just add anything and then claim that the burden of proof is now on the one who wants to remove it. --Student of philosophy (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:BURDEN before making such SPECIOUS statements. The burden under that policy is to ensure that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I provided such "inline citation", so I have met that burden. The burden is now upon you to provide evidence of violation of WP:UNDUE. Put up or shut up! Given your bad-faith, transparently tendentious claims, you have abraded away all assumption of good faith. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Calm down Hrafn. This is not a war (even if you'd like to make it part of the ID-evo war). By adding a passage to the article that is as long as all the essays in the central publication on EAAN together, you make an important claim. Namely the claim that Ruse is more important than any of those essays individually. You failed to provide a source for that important claim. Thus you failed to meet that burden. My undue tag was just a kind way to call this to your attention.--Student of philosophy (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated content in the Ruse passage

There are two passages in the Ruse text that I can't relate to EAAN. Those are the two passages:

"In a chapter titled 'The New Creationism: Its Philosophical Dimension', in The Cultures of Creationism, philosopher of science Michael Ruse discusses Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe and Alvin Plantinga as "the more sophisticated proponents" of creationism's increased philosophical orientation. Ruse states that Plantinga "pushes the science-religion conflict further than Johnson","

This are interesting personal claims of Ruse about Plantinga but don't seem related to EAAN in any way. If this somehow should be related to EAAN, then please an non OR source that will not fail WP:V. This means a text ist needed.

"To be honest even if Plantinga's argument worked, I would still want to know where theism ends (and what form theism must take) and where science can take over. Is it the case that evolution necessarily cannot function, or it is merely false and in another God-created world it might have held in some way — and if so, in what way? Plantinga has certainly not shown that theist must be a creationist, even though his own form of theism is creationism"

It seems that this passage is out of context. The argument is explicity not directed to deny evolution or support creationism, so Ruse must be arguing about some other argument. Is he talking about Plantingas essay on methodological naturalism? Ruses passage is completely out of context. --Student of philosophy (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The "relation to EAAN" was answered in #Tendentious edits BEFORE this subsection was created. This section is therefore nothing more than tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you stop typing everything in bold text? Here is your answer to this issue: "it is Ruse's conclusion in analysing EAAN". Thanks for making this claim, but could you back it up with a source and more information? It seems odd that Ruse claims plantinga didn't provide a reason for creationism if EAAN obviously doesn't attempt to do so. My guess is that Ruse discusses more than EAAN. --Student of philosophy (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is EAAN compatible with TE and with ID?

In the attempt to link EAAN to ID the claim was made that EAAN has only been put forward by ID adherents. No source for this claim was given and if one has a look at the general claim of EAAN, then this is clearly false as this short passage from the above discussion (considered off topic by Guettarda) shows:

""It is not used by Theistic Evolutionists to support Theistic Evolution positions" (by Hrafn) Of course it is, I'm using it. C.S.Lewis was using it and he adopted theistic evolution. Victor Reppert is using it. As shown several times theistic evolutionists even have an advantage in using the argument since evolution is assumed in the argument."

Plantinga himself stated that evolution and theism work well together and lead to no such contradiction as EAAN demonstrates for evolution and naturalism--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this claim of compatibility between EAAN & TE needs to be put into context of Plantinga's writings on related subjects. He is widely discussed (e.g. by Beckwith at pp106-107 in Darwin's Nemesis) as putting forward the idea that a Naturalistic Epistemology makes acceptance of Evolution the more likely conclusion, whereas an acceptance of a non-naturalist (e.g. Theistic) one makes acceptance of some form of antinaturalism (e.g. creationism/ID) more likely.

This, taken in conjunction with EAAN, would appear to lead to some rather odd conclusions:

1. Evolution → Theism (via EAAN) → Antinaturalism (ID/Creationism) (= ~Evolution)
2. Philosophical Naturalism → Evolution → Theism (= ~Philosophical Naturalism, via EAAN)

The first point makes the claim of the compatibility of EAAN & TE more than a little questionable. While I'm not suggesting that the above WP:OR conclusions should be included in the article, I am suggesting that Plantinga's claims that EAAN is compatible with TE need to be placed in the context of his wider writings against Evolution and Methodological Naturalism. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What I don't see is how antinaturalism leads to ID/creationism. Do you understand creationism as every theory that involves god at some point? How is it then to be distinguished from theism? I think antinaturalism without ID or creationism is quite popular and becoming more and more so. With my understanding of antinaturalism EAAN leads to plausible conclusions:

1. Evolution → Theism (via EAAN) → Antinaturalism (=the idea that there are supernatural things)
2. Philosophical Naturalism → Evolution → skepticism → maybe theism (entails denial of naturalism)

I don't understand exactly what is meant by naturalistic epistemology in your statement. Fales for example interprets Plantingas epistemology as a naturalistic epistemology relying on a theistic ontology (see his essay in Beilby).

Could you give me an example for his writings against evolution? I've never encountered any anti-evolution claim in his work so far and I'd be interested to read about it. --194.124.140.39 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See this: "First, I shall argue that the theory of evolution is by no means religiously or theologically neutral. Second, I want to ask how we Christians should in fact think about evolution; how probable is it, all things considered, that the Grand Evolutionary Hypothesis is true? And third, I want to make a remark about how, as I see it, our intellectuals and academics should serve us, the Christian community, in this area." Note the date, before Johnson and the DI took up ID, and his statement that "Returning to methodological naturalism, if indeed natural science is essentially restricted in this way, if such a restriction is a part of the very essence of science, then what we need here, of course, is not natural science, but a broader inquiry that can include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth and could have done it in many different ways. "Unnatural Science," "Creation Science," "Theistic Science"-call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view. What we need is a scientific account of life that isn't restricted by that methodological naturalism." As you may know, creation science was relabelled as intelligent design, and the statement is very close to Johnson's ideas of theistic realism. . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think everybody, intelligent design adherent, theistic evolution adherents and even atheists would agree to this: "theory of evolution is by no means religiously or theologically neutral". The theory of evolution has implications for theology without any doubt (e.g. for the understanding of genesis). It seems you understand this sentence as "the theory of evolution is anti-religion" or something along these lines. How is this reading warranted, especially since Plantinga seems to be open to theistic evolution and thinks it doesn't have the same problems as naturalism?

"Returning to methodological naturalism, if indeed natural science is essentially restricted in this way, if such a restriction is a part of the very essence of science, then what we need here, of course, is not natural science, but a broader inquiry that can include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth and could have done it in many different ways." This also seems self-evidently true for theist and atheist alike. If we don't want to rule out personal explanations for the universe or the existence of life by definition and at the same time adopt methodological naturalism (as most do), then we also need a broader inquiry if we want to find out about personal explanations. If personal explanations are logically possible, then we need a broader inquiry than science (restricted by methodological naturalism) to find out whether personal explanations for the universe or life are true. This is pretty much a truism and I don't see how this is directed against evolution in any way. And it's really odd to call Plantinga a ID-proponent because of a heavily interpreted passage given the influential nature and sheer amount of his work in epistemology, philosophy of religion and metaphysics of modality. Or is there anything else directed against evolution by Plantinga? I will read the essay you linked later, thanks for the link.--194.124.140.39 (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Creation science is a renamed anti-evolution, and holds that "a broader inquiry than science (restricted by methodological naturalism)" can be called science for the purposes of teaching religious views in science classrooms. Intelligent design does exactly the same, and so it's unsurprising that they had Plantinga on their platform to speak against science as it's defined by scientists and by the US courts. There's a pretty obvious connection, not least in footnote 13 where Plantinga refers the reader to the forerunners of ID Charles Thaxton and Michael Denton for evidence that Darwin's theory is "improbable". Which is no doubt the sort of thing that Ruse noticed. . dave souza, talk 13:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This broader inquiry than science (restricted by methodological naturalism) is taught at schools and universities in the form of philosophy. So Plantingas conclusion seems to match his professional career in philosophy of religion. Did he suggest that this new inquiry should be labeled science again and be taught at school in biology or anything along these lines? The way I see it his statements are uncontroversial and any atheist who has seriously considered a personal cause for the universe has engaged in the broader inquiry than science. I can see why this might be interesting for adherents of intelligent design who wish to replace science with this broader inquiry but it seems in itself pretty neutral. Is this really enough to call Plantinga an "advocate of intelligent design"? This essay is nothing but a fractional amount of his impressive work in philosophy and isn't event clearly supporting original ID ideas. It seems very far-fetched in my opinion. The problem is that there have been several cases where the ID label has been abused to disqualify someone (and with him his work). So even the loosest contact to anything ID related is a risk for a scientist or especially philosopher (see for example David Chalmers or Henry Stapp). This kind of behavior is cleary deeply opposed to rationality or science and has to be avoided. This is why in my opinion someone should only be labeled an advocate of intelligent design if he openly embraces ideas exclusive to the ID-movement (and not just theism or the idea that naturalism is self-defeating).

Maybe Plantingas endorsement (see Hrafns text) could shed some light on the matter.

As for your claim about Ruse: "Which is no doubt the sort of thing that Ruse noticed.". This is exactly what I suspect. But this would cut any relation between EAAN and ID since Plantingas essay on "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible" is a different text than EAAN.--Student of philosophy (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The anon IP {perhaps yourself?) said "Could you give me an example for his writings against evolution? I've never encountered any anti-evolution claim in his work so far and I'd be interested to read about it. --194.124.140.39 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)" and this example was in response to that request. There are reviews of that article online which note its apparent endorsement of creation science, something which essentially contradicts theistic evolution by denying the legitimacy of science that doesn't accept supernatural explanations. Get it? . . dave souza, talk 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if it's just that article (he introduced his assessment of the situation with First, let me remind you once more that I am no expert in this area.), then obviously Plantinga cannot be called an advocate of ID since he explicitly excludes his views on evolution/creation from his professional work (where he claims several time that god could have used evolution to create the world.). He may be sympathetic to ID on a personal level (but ever since this article was published he made clear that theistic evolution is an option for christians, as a matter of fact he even mentioned it in this article), but he's clearly not an advocate of intelligent design. It's also obvious now that he has never given a philosophical argument supporting ideas exclusively endorsed by ID since nothing else has been put forward to support the claim that Plantinga "supports" ID. What then of Ruse's argument? It seems there are good reasons for why Ruse remained the only one explicitly labeling Plantinga "one of the more sophisticated proponents of ID". This behavior seems intellectually dishonest (I doubt that a claim like Ruse's would have any chance of being published in a peer reviewed journal.) Accordingly I'd suggest to cut any mentioning of ID in this article and only include sources that are peer reviewed to guarantee a NPOV. --Student of philosophy (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Or is there anything else directed against evolution by Plantinga?"

I have found the source for the comments attributed to Plantinga in my comment above. It is in Plantinga's widely-cited When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible, which is part of a 'conversation' of articles contained in an issue of Christian Scholar's Review. They were reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics -- and all the articles are linked to from that wikilink.

I would also note that the latest edition of Johnson' polemic anti-evolution screed Darwin on Trial contained an endorsement from Plantinga (though I've yet to track down the exact contents of that endorsement. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. "then obviously Plantinga cannot be called an advocate of ID" -- whether his motivation for advocating ID is professional or personal (even were it possible to distinguish between the two, when the basis for the opposition is theological), is irrelevant to the fact that Plantinga is an "advocate of ID"
2. "he explicitly excludes his views on evolution/creation from his professional work" -- given that the piece was published in Christian Scholar's Review, not some local church newsletter, and responded to in CSR by Howard J. Van Till & Ernan McMullin, I think it is reasonable to claim that it was written in a professional, rather than a personal, capacity.
3. "since nothing else has been put forward to support the claim that Plantinga 'supports' ID." YES IT BLOODY WELL HAS BEEN!:
   • The 6 points I made in Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism/Archive 01#Why is this linked to creationism or ID? under the heading of "Plantinga is a long-standing supporter of the ID movement"
   • "Then why do ID advocates such as Francis J. Beckwith (in Darwin's Nemesis) and J. P. Moreland (in Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue) cite the EAAN in defence of their positions"
   • "the latest edition of Johnson' polemic anti-evolution screed Darwin on Trial contained an endorsement from Plantinga"
   • (I'm sure more could be found, but see little point in doing so, given Student of philosophy's continual attempts to ignore/side-step the existing evidence.)

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything you mentioned has been refuted and you still keep mentioning it. If you were not a real person I would find this comical. Your "evidence" is of this sort:

• Plantinga is a member of the ISCID Interesting evidence for EAAN being about ID or supporting ID. I guess "War of the Worlds" with Tom Cruise is a movie supporting/about scientology, right?
• Plantinga was a participant of the controversial 'Nature of Nature' conference sponsored by the Michael Polanyi Center & the Discovery Institute. What did he say? Any idea? Participating at a conference hardly makes anyone a supporter of the committee that organised it. Or else Hitchens were an enthusiastic christian. And of course EAAN and its conclusion is interesting for anybody rejecting naturalism. So obviously those people might be interested in EAAN.
• He presented the EAAN at the 1997 'The Search for Truth' ID conference. EAAN is an interesting argument for anybody opposed to naturalism. Why shouldn't he present it there?
• He presented at the ID conference in May 2001 at Calvin College. EAAN is an interesting argument for anybody opposed to naturalism. Why shouldn't he present it there?

It seems the only chance you have left is the following sources:

• In The Creationists (p398, Extended Ed.) Numbers cites (ft55, p556) Plantinga's "Methodological Naturalism?", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (September 1997) 143-54, as evidence of his involvement in ID.
• the latest edition of Johnson' polemic anti-evolution screed Darwin on Trial contained an endorsement from Plantinga

Since you have constantly refused to cite any text talking about Plantingas involvement in ID based on EAAN it's about time to change this if you want to have any influence on this article. And remember: this is an article about EAAN. The text has to mention EAAN, Plantinga and ID as related to each other. Anything else is OR and fails WP:V. Good luck.

--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Student of philosophy's continual attempts to ignore/side-step the existing evidence";

• Sidesteps Plantinga's involvement in ISCID, using a ludicrously inapt analogy to Tom Cruise/War of the Worlds -- who is it that's being "comical"?
• Ignores the fact that "ID advocates ... cite the EAAN in defence of their positions"...
  • ...then pretends that EAAN is" only "an interesting argument for anybody opposed to naturalism"
• "Since you have constantly refused to cite any text talking about Plantingas involvement in ID based on EAAN"
  1. 'Stop changing the bloody goalposts -- this was in response to your repeated and ludicrous WIDER claim that Palantinga isn't an ID advocate.
  2. In an case Forrest, Ruse, Moreland & Beckwith (and I suspect a number of others besides) all place EAAN in the context of ID.

I find that I am no longer in position to be WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF to Student of philosophy's chronic tendentiousness. I will therefore withdraw for now & allow others to deal with him for the time being. Nothing in this withdrawal should be considered to be in any way acceptance of the validity of their premises, of the soundness of their logic or of their conclusions -- all of which I can be assumed to reject unless I state to the contrary. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to give a summary of the problems of Hrafns arguments here.

Hrafns claim was that EAAN as an argument against naturalism is part of the ID movement. Prima facie this seems obviously wrong because Plantinga and others stated several times that EAAN is perfectly compatible with theistic evolution and is not directed against the theory of evolution. This has been challenged by Ruse, but it seems without argument and he is the only one to challenge this. Hrafn was never able to provide any argument for why EAAN was related to ID without engaging in irrelevant ad hominem arguments of the following sort: Plantinga is a member of ISCID or Plantinga presented the argument at an ID conference. Another attempt to link EAAN to ID has been to show that EAAN has been discussed in books about ID (in particular "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics"). This also failed because Hrafn was never able to provide a text explicitly linking EAAN to ID. WP:V requires a text as a source. The context alone is not enough, especially because there was also a chapter on theistic evolution in the book. The idea that everything contained in an anthology on ID must either be pro or contra ID is obviously OR. Therefore this source also failed. He then quoted Ruse's article in "The Cultures of Creationism". Unfortunately this also fails WP:V because Ruse never claimed that Plantinga is a supporter of ID by means of EAAN. As a matter of fact his quote never so much as mentions EAAN. Dave souza mentioned that Ruse makes his judgement of Plantinga as a supporter of ID based on facts about Plantingas person and other work by him, not EAAN (13:53, 19 May 2009). Hrafn then proposed 2 more promising sources but failed to provide a citation that links EAAN to ID. Dave Souza then provided a link to Plantingas article "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible" where Plantinga takes a rather critical stance towards evolutionary explanations but at the same time wrote:First, let me remind you once more that I am no expert in this area and also makes clear that christians can be theistic evolutionists. But even if one would take this article to be enough to link Plantinga to ID, it would still not link EAAN to ID. So it seems things are pretty much the way they startet:

1. EAAN is an argument against naturalism
2. Many theories and ideas are directed against naturalism, f.e. Deism, Theism, natural Theology and ID (although less clearly because ID adherents several times made obscure claims about the designer being an alien lifeform and thus not supernatural).
3. EAAN is thus not an argument linked to any of these theories exclusively, it's part of the bigger effort to show that naturalism is false (or rather that it is false to believe in naturalism).

It should be noted that if EAAN would be a part of "ID's war against naturalism", there would most likely be numerous articles explicitly adressing this connection given the considerable literature on EAAN. But obviously it's impossible to find even one source that doesn't fail the wikipedia policy.

--Student of philosophy (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Overall structure

Well, we need to get rid of all of the sections and integrate different opinions into a coherent whole...the meanings of the argument, the flaws of the argument, the wider political context...rather than he said/he said sections. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that such a "coherent whole" is possible. You are welcome to try however. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. But I can still hope that maybe there's hope for a decent article that complies with policy. if not, well, that's what AFD and WP:PM are for... Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the level of coverage, an AfD doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of resulting in a deletion. And I don't know of any article that offers sufficient overlap to make merging viable. To "integrate", we really would need some good secondary sources summarising the criticisms (and defences) of the argument -- and I haven't seen any as yet. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right about AFD. But I'm still wondering about whether there might be something to upmerge this into. Though yeah, I'm not sure what that is, and I'm pretty sure that whatever the article is, it doesn't exist yet. Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For obvious reasons AFD has been rejected for this argument some time ago. I suggested some ways to improve the article in the two new discussion sections. I wonder what you'd like to put into the secion on political context. You still haven't come up with a source linking EAAN to ID that doesn't violate OR or WP:V. And I don't know of any other philosophical argument that has a passage on its "political context".--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

The page was both too long, so I archived old discussion. That still left a page that was over 160k, so I removed sections that had turned unproductive and were not actively related to article content. Guettarda (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious edits

1. Contrary to this edit summary, the paragraph gives the context Ruse places it within -- that of ID 'New Creationism'. I can see why Student of philosophy wants this paragraph deleted -- as it undercuts his whole 'EAAN isn't related to ID' BS.
2. Likewise, contrary to this edit summary it is Ruse's conclusion in analysing EAAN. It really doesn't matter whether Student of philosophy disagrees with this conclusion or not.
3. This tag was for the unsubstantiated claim that "Plantinga traces his meditations all the way back to Charles Darwin" -- which the citation for the Darwin quote does not verify.
4. The discussion of Fales criticism that Student of philosophy deleted here is considerably greater than the very brief commentary (given it was based upon only a review of the book) in the Naturalism Defeated? section. If duplication is an issue, it makes more sense to delete the bullet point than the paragraph.

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the things in the appropriate place, it's hard enough to follow the arguments as it is. There is now a section about Ruse's unrelated passages. And feel free to make another attempt at constructing a non OR and non WP:V relation between ID and EAAN in a new passage in the discussion (maybe social/political context of EAAN?). Also please avoid obviously non NPOV titles like "tendentious edits".

Also I added another source for the passage you mentioned to content you. --Student of philosophy (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No. This is the first section in which this issue was raised, so this is "the appropriate place". Just because you decide to create another section about Ruse's related passages (they summarise the introduction to, and quote the conclusion from, his discussion of EAAN) does not mean that I have to go there. The characterisation of your edits in this itle is entirely justified by WP:SPADE. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Usualy a bit more structure in a debate is appreciated (I appreciated Guettarda edits to get a better structure). You can still copy your comments to the appropriate place.--Student of philosophy (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to the comment misplaced in #Unrelated content in the Ruse passage:

1. Only half the text was in bold -- making a point that you had been blithely ignoring (hence the bold).
2. It would be obvious to anybody not looking for half an excuse to delete the material that "Ruse concludes:" meant in conclusion to the material directly above it -- i.e. material on the EAAN.
3. No, the Ruse section on Plantinga is (apart from a reasonably brief introductory paragraph describing Plantinga) purely on the EAAN.

In response to the comment directly above -- tacking on new threads to older-threads-to-which-they're-only-loosely-related is actually a hindrance to discussion -- as it means you've got to search through the page for new entries, rather than simply looking at the 'coal face' at the bottom. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you prefer a long stream of chronological argument instead of systematic argument, so I'll accommodate to your personal preferences. Of course Ruses statements about Plantinga are about Plantinga (hence the tautology). This implies that they are not indirectly about EAAN, unless there is more evidence. You haven't provided any, so I'll get rid of the first passage unless you meet the burden of proof. Concerning the latter statement of Ruse. Why would Ruse mention that Plantinga fails to provide an argument for Creationism if EAAN doesn't intent so? Please give me an appropriate answer to this particular question.--Student of philosophy (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for including it is CONTEXT! Ruse is discussing EAAN in the CONTEXT of ID creationism, a CONTEXT you deny exists. (As to why I'm putting this in big bold capitals, see my point #1 above). I have restored the material. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Ruses book exclusively about EAAN? It doesn't seem so according to amazon. So Ruses conclusions about Plantinga (as a person, Plantinga is not EAAN) may very well (and hopefully are, because anything else would disqualify Ruse as an intellectual) be grounded in other facts he knows about Plantinga, not EAAN. Now PLEASE stop trying desperately to bring your personal sentiments about Plantinga and ID into this article about a philosophical argument. Your OR failing WP:V is annoying and is damaging the quality of this article. --Student of philosophy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Given that it is not "Ruses book", your question demonstrates a lamentably ignorance of the subject.
2. Your wild speculations about "Ruses conclusions about Plantinga" are therefore worthless. Your whole comment can be summed up as 'I don't have clue about what is in the book, but here is what the book said' -- the worst possible sort of WP:OR.
3. As to what the book does say. Ruse' chapter is titled 'The New Creationism: Its Philosophical Dimension' -- as it states in the contextual material you deleted, and his coverage of Plantinga "focuses his discussion of Plantinga on the EAAN" -- as it states in the contextual material you deleted.

Given you have just deleted the very material that rebuts your argument, I really have nothing further to say to you. Hrafn_Stalk(P)

Agree that the context should be shown, and have restored the disputed properly sourced text. Student of philosophy, please stop trying desperately to impose your psrsonal sentiments on this article by removing Ruse's views. . . dave souza, talk 12:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not gonna buy this book just to refute your claims based on actual quotes by Ruse. It seems we're stuck with the rather bad quality of this article because of Hrafns refusal of providing sources that fulfil basic intellectual standarts. I'd suggest you participate in the discussion about the criterion of inclusion in the article. Since you're very fond of Ruse you might want to suggest any hint for why he should be included. I'd rather have your participation now than your rants and edits later.--Student of philosophy (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen that you still haven't answered one of my two questions. Here is the quote by Ruse: "In a chapter titled 'The New Creationism: Its Philosophical Dimension', in The Cultures of Creationism, philosopher of science Michael Ruse discusses Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe along with Alvin Plantinga (and specifically his EAAN) as "the more sophisticated proponents" of creationism's increased philosophical orientation. Ruse states that Plantinga "pushes the science-religion conflict further than Johnson",

Structure of the argument

• The argument has been put forward by Plantinga in 1993, 2002 and 2008. He has slightly adapted it to the criticism given. Which version should be stated in the article? I suggest the 2002 version in Beilbys book because it's the central publication on EAAN and the version in 2008 (knowledge of god) because it's the most recent version.

--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Guettarda added a source needed tag to many steps of the argument. If everything is taken from the same source, is it necessary to make an additional footnote for every sentence or step of the argument?--Student of philosophy (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I reject your premise. As the article stands, there is one {{fact}} for the argument itself (in its entirety -- necessary so that the reader knows which exposition of the argument it is sourced to) + one for some claims on how the argument relates to theism. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a question, not an argument moving from premis to conclusion. Right now several different steps have footnotes, not just the argument + how it relates to theism. But I guess more footnotes never hurt, may be helpful for readers.--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section

Structure of the criticism section

So far the criticism seems to be a mingle-mangle of subjective preferences. I'd like to discuss here the basic criterions for including a response to EAAN here. I reckon there have been around 40 or more peer reviewed responses to Plantinga. Planting provided a defense of EAAN to at least 12 of these essays. We have to make a choice because we can't include all of those answers. Those not included might still be listet for completeness. I suggest the following criterion:

• The central publication on EAAN, Bilbeys essay collection, should have priority.
• More important/influential authors before less important authors. Tooley f.e. is considered to be one of the foremost metaphysicians by the oxford guide to metaphysics if I remember correctly. Merricks is the author of objects and persons, Fodor is famous for his philosophy of mind. How do Robbins, Ruse and Fitelson compare to them?
• Different answers deal with different parts of the argument. The whole argument should be covered.
• Arguments Plantinga has given attention before arguments not answered by anyone.
• The argument has to deal exclusively with EAAN and not with Plantinga, christian philosophy, science/religion or naturalism in general.

--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You keep mentioning Tooley, but never cite him, let alone suggesting text to go into the article discussing Tooley's discussion of EAAN.
2. Given the centrality of Evolution to the EAAN, it would seem appropriate to have a philosopher of science, preferably one with expertise in that area weigh in. To my knowledge, the more (most?) prominent philosophers working in that area are Barbara Forrest, Robert T. Pennock & Michael Ruse (can anybody suggest others?). To my knowledge, neither of the first two have discussed EAAN in any detail.

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 12:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather establish the criterions for inclusion first before spending time on a text that might get deleted.

A philosopher of science is a good idea. I'd suggest Evan Fales as a famous philosopher of science instead of Ruse since Ruse seems to be famous for his work in the ID & evo debate mainly (it seems he has never published any article on EAAN, there is just a section in a book about ID in the US). It also seems that his stance in the science/religion debate was severly criticized other philosophers (The cultures of creationism p.175). Evan Fales on the other hand wrote an article in Beilbys Naturalism Defeated? and another article called "Plantinga's Case against Naturalistic Epistemology".--Student of philosophy (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. And I'd rather see proposed new content, rather than continual hypothetical context-free discussion. Or to put it another way: kindly pony up with what you're proposing replacing current material with, before proposing getting rid of some of it.
2. I find it odd that you're now suggesting Fales, having previously tried to delete the majority on the content on his discussion of the EAAN.
3. I would note that Fales' background is in physics rather than biology. How extensively has he written on the philosophy of biology in general, and that of evolution in particular?
4. I would therefore have no objection to including more material from Fales, in addition to material from Ruse, but have yet to be convinced that it should be included instead of him.

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 14:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I would but It took a long time until you even accepted direct quotes by Plantinga concerning evolution. This is why I hesitate a bit. But I'll take your word for it.
2. I only deleted redundant material. I'd welcome more detailed expositions of the essays in Naturalism Defeated?. Without doubt they stand out in the impressive amount of literature on EAAN.
3. Fodor, Ramsey and Fales employ arguments from the philosophy of biology. And what seems important: to some degree they agree with each other although many details vary and they have different focuses. Ruse on the other hand has not published anything on EAAN in a peer reviewed journal and states than Plantinga argues for creationism in EAAN, something Plantinga and others have explicitly denied on several occasions. This alone makes him a dubious candidate for inclusion in an article in my opinion.--Student of philosophy (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Authors

Fales

Fales has published one essay in Naturalism Defeated and one somewhere else. The content of the two is very similar. I've deleted the passage on Fales and suggest to reduce the discussion to his essay in Naturalism Defeated. The content of the two is nearly the same and it seems weird to discuss all the responses in naturalism defeated except Fale's to avoid redundancy. --Student of philosophy (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Darwin quote

The statement that "Plantinga traces his meditations all the way back to Charles Darwin" gives the misleading impression that Darwin shared the same view, as the quotation from Darwin is lifted out of its context. Darwin doubted Graham's argument from purpose in natural laws, and while his own "inward conviction" was "that the Universe is not the result of chance", Darwin expressed doubt that this conviction could be trusted. Source: Desmond and Moore's Darwin pp. 652–653. Plantinga appears to be expressing the opposite view, asserting that testable science should be doubted. This misreading is not shared by AiG, and Plantinga's wording should be examined with care as is seems unlikely that Plantinga is so blatantly quote-mining Darwin. . . dave souza, talk 12:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "traces this doubt" might be more to the point and less misleading. Darwin seems to express only general doubts about the reliability of our cognitive faculties, not a developed argument.--Student of philosophy (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

I would strongly Student of philosophy read WP:TALK, particularly

1. where it states "Start new topics at the bottom of the page" &
2. where it suggests that large-scale refactoring is not appropriate (this would include attempts at recontextualising older discussion into the context of an editor's later comments).

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This

Looks more like a paper seitten on the subject then a article--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Comments like "No,in spite of taunting from Student of philosophy, "The next edit by Hrafn will violate the three strikes rule")" and "See discussion page for the argumentation about Ruse. The next edit by Hrafn will violate the three strikes rule." are not good. Be warned William M. Connolley (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

William: my point was that my "next edit" (the edit to which I attached that edit summary), did not "violate the three strikes rule" as it did not involve a revert, but merely placing a template on the disputed section. I'm sorry if I failed to articulate this sufficiently clearly. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing with the ID tag

Since Hrafn has convinced other editors that there is edit warring going on in this article, further argument is needed to warrant the removal of the ID tag. So far I've mostly given negative arguments. I've shown why Hrafns arguments were not valid or involved OR and why his sources failed WP:V (for a summary see the last post in Is EAAN compatible with TE and with ID?). Guettarda never argued for any of his edits, so I'll not mention him in this argument. Dave souza was in the same boat as Hrafn, he was only able to relate another essay by Plantinga to ID, not EAAN. One other positive argument I've given was the following: EAAN is directed against naturalism. Natural theology is also directed against naturalism. Natural theology has no ID-tag, therefore EAAN should not have an ID tag either. This argument has been ignored by all participants for unknown reasons. Now I want to give a sociological argument against the relation between EAAN and ID based on one source by Hrafn. Since the beginning of this discussion I have read most of the sources Hrafn and Dave Souza have provided and a few days ago I bought "Intelligent Deisng Creationism and its Critics" and I read the suggested passages (it should be noted that it seems Hrafn and Guettarda have not even read EAAN itself since they first argued on the basis of misunderstandings). The book contains a hint that suggests EAAN is not related to ID. I can't call it a real source, because as with Hrafns and Daves arguments, there is no text involved linking ID to EAAN (so it fails WP:V). The chapter that contains the relevant passages is called "Plantinga's Critique of Naturalism and Evolution". The title suggests that the chapter is about his critique of the conjunction of naturalism and evolution, not ID. Evan Fales and Fitelson/Sober's essays printed in this chapter (Plantinga himself doesn't present EAAN in the book) have been published elsewhere before, both without any ID context. This alone could be considered positive evidence that EAAN is not related to ID but to naturalism (which is obvious from the content of the argument). But then there is another chapter and its title is "Intelligent Design Theorists Turn the Tables". Obviously the arguments by ID adherents related to ID are to be found in this chapter. EAAN is not in this chapter. Thus the editor if this book positively thought that EAAN is not related to ID but to naturalism. Based on this conclusion I'll remove the ID tag. If you don't agree with this, it's up to you to provide arguments to the contrary.--89.236.165.232 (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a prominent argument supporting one of the main aims of ID, and the argument was presented at an ID conference by Plantinga, who as an ISCID fellow is a registered ID supporter. So, the issue's of interest to the ID Wikiproject. Efforts to improve the article will be welcome, IP or sock editwarring to remove the tag is disruptive editing and may lead to a block if continued. One point about the arguments you present above: AAN is directed against methodological naturalism, as is much of ID, natural theology is not necessarily directed against methodological naturalism, and many of its proponents worked within that discipline. . . dave souza, talk 16:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

EAAN is not directed against methodological naturalism. Have you read the argument even once? It's explicitly directed against philosophical or metaphysical naturalism on combination with evolution. If you don't even know what EAAN is, you should maybe edit other articles. Accordingly, it's on the same level as natural theology concerning the ID Wikiproject interest. --89.236.165.232 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It blatantly conflates the two, as does ID. . dave souza, talk 16:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See, e.g., this article by Alvin Plantinga on the Discovery Institute website. See also this article by William Dembski and note the relationship of Plantinga to intelligent design. Also see this ISCID page, where Plantinga is listed as a fellow in the ISCID, which receives most of its funding through the the Discovery Institute and is, along with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, one of the three main prongs of the Discovery Institute's advocacy of intelligent design. Plantinga, for these reasons among others, is of significant interest to WP:WikiProject intelligent design. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• As for you bold claim Dave, it seems obvious why nobody holds this view among philosophers (with the exception of maybe Ruse who is outside of his field when it comes to EAAN). And it once more discredits you as a neutral contributor.
• Kenosis, you're certainly right and I agree that the tag is justified in the case of Plantinga. But this is not his personal page so it is not justified here.--89.236.165.232 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Plantinga himself discussed ID and ID arguments in relation to EAAN. Why shouldn't we discuss that relationship? . . dave souza, talk 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, would you provide a link to the text you're talking about (the one where Plantinga discusses EAAN and its relation to ID)?--89.236.165.232 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The only relevant issue at the moment is whether Plantinga is of interest to WP:WikiProject intelligent design. He is, there's a rational justification for it, and there's a strong consensus for it. So that's the end of the relevant discussion, at least lacking a change in the consensus of participants in the intelligent design WikiProject. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Kenosis' last comment should be rephrased "Plantinga and his arguments pertaining to evolution and naturalism of interest to WP:WikiProject intelligent design" but, otherwise, I agree with his sentiment. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 04:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think his formulation is the correct one and yours is based on misunderstandings of the argument and its systematic place in philosophy. I had a look at the Wikiproject ID and couldn't find anything about EAAN. Can you show me where the consensus concerning the inclusion of ID was built? Until then the tag will be removed for ungrounded claims about the Wikiproject ID.--194.124.140.39 (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Positioning of the ID project template

Do we really care whether the ID project template comes before or after the Philosophy one? I for one don't. If our friend really really cares, I'd suggest that (having won the battle over the template's inclusion) we concede the largely irrelevant point over precedence. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 04:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I mistakenly reverted the change of positioning by the "anon IP". When I reverted, it had looked to me on my mouseover popup window like the philosophy wikiproject template had been removed rather than merely changed in order of presentation. Had I realized I wouldn't have bothered, as it's totally irrelevant in what order they're placed on this page. Again, my mistake. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I almost did the same thing. But given that Aunt Entropy has now also reverted this positioning (either intentionally, or through the same mistake as ours, I don't know), so I thought it better to raise the issue rather than letting a fairly pointless edit-war continue. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Beilby p.204
2. Beilby p.1

• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class epistemology articles
• Unknown-importance epistemology articles
• Epistemology task force articles
• Start-Class logic articles
• Unknown-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• Start-Class philosophy of religion articles
• Unknown-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles