In general, I thought the "creationist" side was very poorly
represented. Johnson and Behe apparently aren't accustomed to being
challenged by well informed opponents. Eugenie Scott started off by
refusing to let Johnson get away with his usual evolution = materialism
line and he never recovered. Behe was equally lame and seldom even made
an effort to respond to the challenges put to him. Berlinski was
probably the most arrogant of the lot and as a mathematician apparently
doesn't understand that doing scientific research is not the same thing
as proving the Pythagorean theorem.
What I found intriguing about the whole affair was that every one
of the "evolution" side distanced themselves from Dawkins' extreme
position. Each of them seemed quite willing to concede that scientific
research does not and cannot address the question of whether or not
descent with modification is directed and controlled by a diety. In
light of this, Miller (I believe) even asked Buckley why he was sitting
on the "creationist" side of the table. It was sad to watch Buckley
fumble about for an answer, particularly when he had no response to
Miller's well chosen quotation from Pope John Paul II's Oct 1996 address
on evolution.
The general impression I came away with was that each member of the
"creationist" side has carved out a receptive niche within various
Christian communities and they are unwilling to sincerely engage the
counter evidence to their positions.
These comments are of course very schematic and much more can be
said. I found the debate extremely entertaining and it was carried out
on a much higher level than usually takes place.
Jim Hofmann
----------
From: Cliff Lundberg
To: evolution@Calvin.edu
Sent: 12/22/97 5:03:39 PM
Subject: Re: TV Debate?
Greg Billock wrote:
>
> Hi. Did anyone see the 'Firing Line' TV show a couple of days
> ago? I guess Behe, Johnson, and Berlinski were on it, debating
> with several folks from the opposing side. Any reflections?
> Impressions?
Same old stuff. Behe and Berlinski were not as impressive or as
much fun as I'd expected. The British philosopher at least had some
perspective and good will. Mainly I was reflecting on how important
are style, strength, and preparation, in these things. If Johnson
had something original going for himself in biology, he's be quite
a figure.
There's a problem of levels--materialistic thinking is a subset of
religious thinking. Should evolutionary biologists recognize
creationism? Why should they? It has no connection to their science.
-- Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noevalley.com