Saturday, May 07, 2005

Angus Menuge

P5063402-Vi
Angus Menuge: blah.
Has read majority and minority report. Looks like Mr. Bean.

Cal: Methodological naturalism vs. philosophical naturalism. Is there a difference in practice, esp. for the person receiving information? (only spends 5 minutes asking the question).

Teleology == design. (not really).

M,N. will only present evidence which supports a universe with no god.

Quote presented, but changes all the nouns.

Slide:

Darwinian evolution claims:

All apparent design in nature is an illusion.

ID provides empirical scientific criteria for detecting design in nature, and argues: Some apparent design in nature is REAL.

This is the scientific controversy.


Wrong, but whatever.

From slide: MN says "proceed as if there is no design." This "prevents the Darwinian claim … from being tested." "MN does not permit the controversy", therefore violates NCLB.

Excluding supernatural is the same as suppressing evidence.

Claims there are no competitors allowed.

Darwin had to outcompete William Paley's Natural Theology. It outcompeted creationism. Furthermore, cannot evaluate design without prediction. Design is perfect post hoc, but shitty at prediction.

Have new evidence or explanations overturned evolution? No, so why start in the schools?

Smith case of 1987, secular humanism is a religion.

"MN sides with non-theistic religions" NO! MORON! How do you fix your car?

paraphrased: "If it favors religion here or there, so be it" 11:42

Argues that inferring design from murder doesn't require metaphysics, and is the same as inferring supernatural design. But the issue in supernatural design is that we don't know the supernatural exists.

Doesn't know the age of the earth, won't offer an opinion.

Many possible theories of earth age.

Doesn't accept common descent.

Doubts common descent of humans from pro-hominids. Self-organization (from what?).

Where does Draft 2 forbid theism? Nowhere. Also doesn't use "naturalism" or "methodological naturalism."

How do you explain theists who are scientists? "Maybe they're confused?" Maybe they've accommodated MN into their beliefs.

Nice quote from Michael Denton on the rejection of creationism, and the acceptance of common descent because of evidence. Very nice quote.

Board of Commissioners v. Smith 655-f sup. 939 Alabama, 1987.

If you don't present evidence against something, you are endorsing it. Therefore, the absence of criticism of ID in the minority report makes it one sided in favor of ID.

Is Darwin dogma? MN is dogma.

Bugged Menuge and reporters during lunch. Menuge conceded that I made some "good points" which means I'm a philosopher now. He hadn't thought about emergent properties, and claimed that they were irreducible. Which is wrong in a right way. Or vice versa.