Hi, Dennis. Your post has coincided with an article in "The Times"
newspaper (29 Sept) written by Matt Ridley (A pro-Darwin biologist).
Ridley claims that "Professor Daniel Dennet has had more influence on
scientists than any other philosopher since Sir Karl Popper". The
link with your post is consciousness. According to Ridley, "His last
book dethroned the mystery of consciousness - there is none".
Thought you might like to know that. You are studying an area where
feelings run high! (the book had the title: "Consciousness explained).
But Ridley's interest is more in what Dennett has to say in his
latest book: "His new one, 'Darwin's dangerous idea' does the same
for the meaning of life - there is none. His theme is that most of
us still don't realise how corrosive of all our intellectual
assumptions is the simple idea at the heart of Darwinism. ... once
you consider the possibility that everything can evolve an appearance
of purpose and design without an intelligent designer, nothing is
sacred. .... Evolution is therefore, a mindless, necessary,
unavoidable, "algorithmic" process that, without ever having a goal,
produced the human brain and the software it so potently carries:
conscious intelligence."
"The Sunday Times" (24 Sept) carried a eulogy of this book by John
Gribbin: "The dangerous thing about natural selection, in the
eyes of many people, is that it requires nothing except the blind
workings of chance to produce the variety of life on earth today,
including ourselves, from a single common ancestor in the
primeval ooze of 3.5 billion years ago. . . . . This is the best
single- author overview of all the implications of evolution by
natural selection available".
I acknowledge that I've not read either of these books. But I cannot
help relate it to the things Phil Johnson has been saying. This is
naturalism through and through.
Is this guy really as influential as Ridley suggests? What is our
response? For me, I am happy with Phil Johnson's analysis. I am
particularly interested in how the TEs react: are you going to repeat
the kind of arguments you have been using in the past, or is there a
need to develp your position to address the challenges thrown out by
people like Dennett?
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***