Macroevolution is a death-blow to one VERSION of the "design argument" ---
a version which relied exclusively on an analogy between living organisms
and complex machines assembled by craftsmen. That hardly counts as
destroying "the doctrine of design and purpose in nature."
Quite a few non-theistic "Darwinist" scientists disagree with Huxley on
this point. (And some of their quotations --- regarding how certain
aspects of nature appears to be "designed" --- have even made it onto this
discussion group.)
---------
SJ> If TE's could make a real break with philosophical naturalism, then
> they would be able to make their case against Darwinism's anti-theism.
> But instead they criticise those like Johnson who try to take the
> fight up to naturalism.
TEs have been writing books and articles against philosophical naturalism
since long before _Darwin_on_Trial_. So have some PCs, for that matter.
It is simply incorrect to imply that TEs have been complacent while PCs
have carried the fight. (For many decades, there has been a fair amount
of complacency, and a few eloquent warriors, amongst both PCs and TEs.)
There may be a few exceptions, but on the whole I believe that TE
critiques of Phillip Johnson's work have been confined to Christian
scholarly magazines and conferences, which is where such critiques belong.
Ideally, this is motivated by, and perceived as, an attempt to _improve_
PJ's arguments, so that he can be more effective in his battle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your denial of my victimhood |
is lowering my self-esteem!" | Loren Haarsma
--Calvin (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu