WRE>I'm not sure that outsiders to a field never contribute anything,
WRE>even breakthrough inisghts, but the discussion has gotten fairly
WRE>far afield. The "outsider" bit started off with discussion of
WRE>Phillip Johnson. This is a specific case that can be examined.
WRE>What, if anything, can be attributed to Johnson as a contribution
WRE>to biology? I don't recall seeing any critiques that were novel
WRE>to Johnson. I certainly don't recall anything that could be
WRE>considered a breakthrough that originated with Johnson. But maybe
WRE>I've overlooked something.
AC>"Outsiders" always have the potential to cause open-minded
AC>(whatever that means) "insiders" to evaluate the logic of
AC>their stance, particularly when this position is dictated not
AC>by the data, but by the model, as is most certainly the case
AC>in thinking about origins. Thus, even the Phil Johnsons of
AC>the world can fulfill a valuable role in science.
This is specifically what I am saying is wrong with this
discussion. It should not be about what Phil Johnson *could*
do; it should be about what Phil Johnson *has* done. Johnson
has had his at-bats; now is the time to review the stats from
the past seasons rather than continually reiterate what
promise Johnson-the-rookie once held.
AC>If he is right, then hopefully, the self-corrective nature of
AC>science will kick in at some point and realign us. If he is
AC>wrong, then his focusing attention on the weaknesses of
AC>evolutionary theory can only help those practitioners who care
AC>about evolutionary theory to tighten up their model.
But if Johnson misrepresents the field and that
misrepresentation goes beyond the practitioners who know that
it is misrepresentation, then Johnson's influence causes harm
and not just good. If Johnson is right, then the
self-correcting process will kick in with or without Johnson's
aid. But if Johnson is wrong, the *manner* in which he errs
can produce bad effects.
AC>So, bring on the Philip Johnsons. The only people who have
AC>anything to fear are those with a vested interest in
AC>evolutionary theory as a world view. In that case, Johnson is
AC>attacking your religion, and that is another issue altogether.
Eh? Art blithely cruises to an exclusionary claim without
producing the least support for it. I think that anyone who
fears the mess that politically-mandated biology caused in the
USSR from the mid-forties to the mid-sixties will also have
cause to fear the Discovery Institute's political action plan
to set aside biology here. That's not a point of religion.
I notice that there were no instances of a novel contribution
to biology by Johnson cited by Art. Like I said, I can't
think of any, either.
Wesley