I have made the case in more detail in the past.

Material explanations are preferred, not because of a priori commitment to materialism but because they are the only ones that can be verified according to the scientific method. If Lewontin has a problem with the scientific method then he is not a scientist.

They use the scientific method to determine known aspects of human behavior.  At least TRY to be honest.

Yeah, other animals do to. But I think that when known designers are incapable of accomplishing the supposed design event then you cannot infer design.

The films cast has little to do with their position. Were you trying for humor?


If gays believed a film showed homosexuality in a negative light("Basic Instinct" for example), were they protesting because it had Sharon Stone?



edit- for piss poor grammar

No.

I am a cheap bastard & will wait for it to show up on TBS. 


I'm undecided. Knowing the authors slant, it could very well be that his intention, however subtle, is just that.

The greater issue, in my opinion, is whether or not kids will actually pick up on it.

Most of these battles appear to be between 'adults' on both sides.
Couldn't it simply be that kids will see this as a cool story with swords, good guys, bad guys, magic, etc?

(Similar to Chronicles of Narnia)

The target audience seems a bit young for the philosophical.

[YES!
[/quote]

O yawn, another trap sprung.  We'll now get miracles, the origin of life the universe and everything etc.   

What we can infer is that:
1.  The 'particular event' as reported is reported incorrectedly...
2.  If correctly observed and reported, then 'known material processes' are not sufficient and further theory/explanation is needed...
3.  If sufficient explanation is never (or cannot be) forthcoming, then materialism should be judged against other explanations...
4.  If there is a better (or even 'equal') explanation, then and only then are we prevented from inferring materialism.

I'm sure the scholastic casuistry of a dedicated theist could pick holes in that too, but just abide by the spirit...


On a broader note, intentional actions are all accountable for by physical processes.  The category error is to assign a separate category to 'design'.  The supreme logical error is to then extend this category to everything.

Did I fall into a trap? I would have thought that by leading with a question RF has said that he basically agrees with my statement (when known designers are incapable of accomplishing the supposed design event then you cannot infer design).
[/quote]

I am sure RF didn't mean to mislead with his restatement of your statement, but it was intended I am equally sure as a rhetorical device to say that if you use this to deny 'design' it can be used to deny materialism.

As usual, though, the clever rhetoric hides an error in equating 'a known designer'/'supposed design'  with 'known material processes'/'particualr event'.   This is because the relationship between 'designer' and 'design' is teleological, whereas process/event is simply causal.  'Design' adds intent/purpose i.e. mentality, which is absent in the fundamental first order workings of material processes.  Mentality (and discussion of it and discussion of discussions etc) are higher order events:  the whole idea of teleology exists within our thinking processes, but that does not mean it exists as a force in nature.  We can use teleological explanations as a 'shorthand' that often suffices to account for things - this doesn't mean that the account is correct, merely sufficient for our purposes at the time.  For example, when a moth dives suddenly when a high-pitched sound is heard nearby - we may say the moth wants to avoid a predator (a bat).  But the reaction is a reflex with no mentality involved at all: however, the explanation is satifying.     As I said, the error of the 'designers' is to carry a heuristic into detailed explanation.