The Philosophy Society at my school invited Professor Fales to give three lectures this past week. One of them was very interesting, it was entitled: "Intellegent Design, and the Dover Trial." What professor Fales argued was that the judges ruling that I.D isn't science was correct, but that it was based on faulty reasoning. Professor Fales thinks that I.D could be science...in principle, it is just a matter of fact that it isn't. While Professor Fales thinks it is highly improbable that I.D could ever be part of science, he is open to the possibility. For example, he gave a senerio in which one would be justified in infering a supernatural cause: if one day the stars rearanged themselves in such a way to form sentences from a natural language, say English. In this respect, he argues, that not only is a law of nature being broken, but there must be a great deal of power and intellegence to do such a feet.

I have mixed feelings on this matter. However, I was happy yo hear professor Fales argue what I have been arguing for the last year: If you are going to infer a designer, you can't merely stop there. Many I.D advocates like to say that the inference to a designer is scientifically justified...but not the discussion on the nature of this being. However, this is insuffiencient. If I.D is to be a part of science, it MUST work toward describing the nature of the being it is infering. i mean, this happens all the time in science. One doesn't merely infer that electrons exist...but rather, it infers and then describes their nature. One cannot MERELY infer design and then say that any attempt to describe this being is "delving into Philosophy and Theology." This was one area that I was happy Fales hit on. Fales basically argued that I.D as a scientific hypothesis, as of now, is insufficient to explain anything; however, that is only because it hasn't been fleshed out like Evolution has been.

Evan Fales is definatly a sharp man. I had dinner with him a few days ago, and I think he would make a great guest.