Allan Harvey, responding to Bryan posted the following concerning
Phillip Johnson's evolution implies atheism beliefs.
>
> In a message dated 7/7/00 10:49:08 PM Mountain Daylight Time, crossbr@SLU.EDU
> writes:
>
> > Also, I asked for substantiation for the claim that
> > according to Johnson "macroevolution disproves God". >
> Though Johnson does not use the word "macroevolution", that is clearly what
> he means when he talks about an "evolutionary process that was to all
> appearances mindless and purposeless."
>
> Again I come back to my earlier point that, even if Johnson and the rest of
> the ID crowd do not believe it, the church hears the (unhealthy) message of
> total incompatibility between evolution (beyond little bits of
> microevolution) and theism. If that is a misunderstanding of the message,
> Johnson has dodged innumerable opportunities to correct the
> misconception. Instead, he seems to revel in being the guy who is battling
> the natural explanations of science in order to save God from being pushed
> out of existence.
>
In fact, a number of Johnson's friends understand Johnson to hold that
evolution implies atheism or something close to it. At the very
least, they do not consider it worth refuting.
Two examples:
1. At last summer's ASA meeting there was a friendly and honest
discussion involving ID folk (including Paul Nelson, Bill Dembski,
Charlie Thaxton) and others who for theological and scientific
reasons are skeptical of ID (including among others Denis
Lamoureux, Howard Van Till, George Murphy). It was one of the
most pleasant discussions I have had on the subject. Would that it
would continue. When Paul Nelson asked us about our objections to
Johnson, I stated that my biggest objection was his "evolution
implies atheism" position. Nobody raised the slightest objection
or attempted to correct my understanding. It was an
uncontroversial statement.
2. Philosopher Michael Ruse, a friendly opponent of Johnson's,
speaking at the Austin TX Intelligent Design confererence where he
and Johnson were principal speakers, stated that Daniel Dennet and
Richard Dawkins argue in a "Johnson-like" way that "evolution
implies atheism." This was unchallenged.
One might judge from previous posts on the list that Johnson's friends
and opponents have carelessly made inferences from Johnson's books,
but that Johnson finds the misunderstanding insignificant.
In fact, Johnson does seem to qualify this view slightly. I recall
several passages in which he states that one could accept evolution
and believe in an essentially meaningless God that doesn't act in the
world (exists only in the mind of the believer).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department |
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 11 2000 - 11:17:51 EDT