Someone please send Barbara Forrest a thesaurus
|February 9, 2009||Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design|
Barbara Forrest responds to David DeWolf in The News Star.
Early in the article Forrest puts forth a false dichotomy which undermines all that follows. My emphasis:
DeWolf’s portrayal of ID as scientific is falsified by his defining it as involving the “actions of an intelligent agent as the cause of phenomena that natural processes are unlikely to produce.” If phenomena are not naturally caused, they are supernaturally caused. There is no other alternative.
Not only are there other alternatives but supernatural isn’t even an antonym for natural. If we go to a thesaurus and look up the word natural we find listed among the antonyms the words technological and artificial. Notably we do not find the word supernatural listed as an antonym.
Maybe Babs should spend more time improving her vocabulary and less time disproving the assertion that ID is science.
Of course there’s an alternative explanation here. Perhaps Forrest is well aware that natural/supernatural is a false dichotomy and she’s just an unapologetic liar. In fact that makes more sense as you usually can’t get a PhD without at least a college entrance-level vocabulary.