On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:07:11 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
WE>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.
Before I get onto Johnson, may I add my 2 cents to this "outsiders never
contribute anything" thread? Apart from Darwin the theological student
and Lyell the lawyer, and Einstein the patent clerk, what about Wegener,
the astronomer, the father of the modern theory of continental drift:
"Wegener was not the first to propose large-scale 'displacement' of the
continents. His version of Drift was rejected in his lifetime. Those few who
did take his theory seriously in the two decades after his death were often
critical of his presentation and accepted not his version but one of several
modifications. His career was not distinguished. He was not a recognized
authority in the then-central specialties in geology. His modest reputation
was grounded in meteorology, palaeoclimatology and polar exploration. He
did not hold a prestigious chair at a major university, attract throngs of
admiring graduate students, or win significant prizes or awards. Were we
to be writing a history of modern geology, in 1950 or even in 1960
Wegener would receive no more than a footnote. No extracts-from his
writings would be included among classic papers in the discipline (e.g.,
Mather, 1967). Yet, today if we were to tell the story of the modern
revolution in terms of heroes and villains, Wegener would feature as the
heroic but neglected genius... Alfred Wegener was born in Berlin in 1880.
He acquired a taste for science as well as outdoor sports and pursued
studies in the former at the University of Berlin as well as spending some
terms at Heidelberg and Innsbruck. He concentrated on physics,
meteorology and astronomy but also found time for skiing and
mountaineering. He capped his studies at Berlin in 1905 with a Ph.D. in
Astronomy. The thesis topic, the conversion of a thirteenth-century set of
astronomical tables from sexagesimal into decimal notation, precipitated his
decision to abandon a career in astronomy. Instead, he joined the Prussian
Aeronautical Observatory at Lindenberg. From 1906 to 1908 he served as
a meteorologist in a Danish expedition to Greenland." (Le Grand H.E.,
"Drifting Continents and Shifting Theories: The Modern Revolution in
Geology and Scientific Change", Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
1988, p37)
WE>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.
Wesley had indeed "overlooked something"! Johnson does not even *claim*
to be making "a contribution to biology", at least at the scientific detail level.
Nor does he claim that his critiques are "novel", although I think that some
of them are.
His *real* focus is on the *philosophical assumptions* and *rules of
reasoning* which underly biology, and indeed much of modern
materialist-naturalist science:
"Before undertaking this task I should say something about my
qualifications and purpose. I am not a scientist but an academic lawyer by
profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of arguments and
identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments. This
background is more appropriate than one might think, because what people
believe about evolution and Darwinism depends very heavily on the kind of
logic they employ and the kind of assumptions they make." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp13-14)
Johson says on one of his tapes that the real book he wanted to write first
was "Reason in the Balance" with its sub-title "The Case Against Naturalism
in Science, Law and Education". But he found he had to write "Darwin on
Trial" first because it is *Darwinism* which provides the foundational
`creation-myth' for the others.
It is early days yet. Johnson only got started in 1987 and his first book on
the topic of evolution only came out only 8 years ago in 1991. Already his
evolution books have sold over a quarter of a million copies and they are
being widely read, not only in creationist circles. He is writing another
major book which will be published by a major secular publisher which
promises to be the best yet.
Johnson's biggest accomplishment was is probably the founding of the ID
movement and that may in the 21st Century make a *major* "contribution
to biology" by re-establishing Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific
research paradigm!
The atheist Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg has acknowledged Johnson
as "The most respectable academic critic of evolution":
"The most respectable academic critic of evolution may currently be
Professor Phillip Johnson of the University of California School of
Law." (Weinberg S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," Pantheon: New York,
1992, p247).
If Wesley thinks that Johnson is unimportant and can be safely ignored
as offering no "contribution to biology", then he is in denial mode!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once evolved assumed
additional functions, but how they arose initially presumably from
reptilian scales, defies analysis." (Stahl B.J., "Vertebrate history:
Problems in Evolution", Dover: New York, 1985, p349)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------