FW: Experts Worry That Public May Not Trust Science

MccarrickAD@nswccd.navy.mil
Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:21:40 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mccarrick Alan D CRPH
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 10:33 AM
> To: 'Wesley R. Elsberry'
> Subject: RE: Experts Worry That Public May Not Trust Science
>
> Wesley,
>
> I must agree with your sentiments concerning the lack of uniqueness in
> Phil's contribution to the discussion. He certainly has created much
> discussion - in circles that might not be otherwise interested. That may
> be his (and Behe's) most important work. (Similar to Hugh Ross'
> opportunity to speak to university faculties that would never be open to
> Henry Morris). But his points concerning the philosophical underpinnings
> of the evolution debate are not new - that is not to say they are not
> true, but not too many scientists have any desire to listen to Ken Ham et
> al.
>
> I am beginning to be bothered by Phil's attitude that He is the leading
> edge, He is the target that draws the fire, etc. The YEC side seems to
> still keep him at arm's length, as being not quite orthodox enough. You
> can see that in the ICR's response to the Fireing Line debate of the
> recent past - (rough quotation follows) "Of course they (Johnson, et al)
> couldn't make a convincing case for God's work in creation because they
> refuse to stand on all of God's account - the literal days and the
> worldwide flood. Remove those truths and you'll never succeed." If
> anyone wants, I'll try to find ICR's actual response, but I got the gist
> right.
>
> Al McCarrick
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 10:07 AM
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Cc: welsberr@inia.cls.org
> Subject: Re: Experts Worry That Public May Not Trust Science
>
>
> I'm not sure that outsiders to a field never contribute anything,
> even breakthrough inisghts, but the discussion has gotten fairly
> far afield. The "outsider" bit started off with discussion of
> Phillip Johnson. This is a specific case that can be examined.
>
> What, if anything, can be attributed to Johnson as a contribution
> to biology? I don't recall seeing any critiques that were novel
> to Johnson. I certainly don't recall anything that could be
> considered a breakthrough that originated with Johnson. But maybe
> I've overlooked something.