Eugene C. Scott does a hatchet job on Phillip Johnson using a review of
Robert T. Pennock's book "Tower of Babel."
What is so appalling is that SA will not let Johnson respond. Agree
with Prof. Johnson or not, but that there is such fear of his views
being heard in the SA forum suggests that they are to the point.
When I teach my course on Creation vs. Evolution I begin with an intense
section on what I will accept for support for a particular view. For
example, the Piltdown Man fraud does not prove evolution is wrong nor
does Jimmy Baker prove Christianity wrong eventhough such arguements
appeal to many. History or progenity or credentials are not reasons for
believing anything. On this basis the review of Scott is trashy.
For example, he claims that modern ID is simply an outgrowth of Paley
and therefore should be rejected a priori. Further, since ID is simply
a cover story for theisim, it should also be rejected a priori. It does
not matter weither this historical comment is true or not and it does
not affect weither ID is true or false. Historical genesis of ideas
does not change the nature of nature. Ideas do not have a truth which
derives from their history or proponents. Assigning ideas to unliked
sources is a kind of slander and it is not worthy retoric on either
side.
Of course he cannot get through two pages without surfacing a favorate
whipping boy the "God of the Gaps" . What about the "Science of the
Gaps." He even admits that they don't know how life originated but
seems to have great faith that this is not a problem--of ye of great
faith.
Bert M