At 12:35 AM 8/21/00 -0500, Chris wrote:
>> "In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific
>> evidence that
>> convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse
>> once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It
>> is the
>> way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they
>> are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A
>> real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to
>> prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely upon
>> enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the
>> official
>> story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
>> welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they
>> would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to
>> caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely
>> upon the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E.,
>> "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism,"
>> InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 2000, p.141)
>
>They *do* welcome critics to *academic* forums for open debate. The
>problem is that Johnson, et al, don't have much in the way of usable
>criticism. Mostly they grotesquely misrepresent evolutionary theory and
>complain (as above) because science doesn't take their *religious* beliefs
>as science.
Yes, of course. The amazing thing is that IDers regularly quote the critics
of Darwinism,
yet we are supposed to believe that such criticism is not allowed.
As one example, Roger Lewin's paper in <Science> was recently quoted from.
The subtitle of
this paper is "An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade
long dominance
of the Modern Synthesis".
Let me take a moment to make another point. I've been meaning for some time
to write a
few paragraphs showing the extent to which Phil's argument relies on
_ad-hominem_.
But now this seems hardly necessary since he admits as much in the above
paragraph.
>If Johnson and his gang of intellectual thugs actually *had* "the best
>critical arguments," they could have long since *published* them for *all*
>of us to examine. Instead, we have almost pure trash like "Darwin on
>Trial," "Reason in the Balance," "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds,"
>and now, apparently, "The Wedge of Truth."
>
>I'm only judging from recent interviews of Johnson and from Stephen's
>quotes from the book, and I know how unreliable Stephen is at quoting, so
>there's a lot of room for mis-guessing here. Nevertheless, it appears that
>Johnson has not given up his campaign of lies and misrepresentations.
>Unfortunately, Johnson has just enough right about social issues to enable
>him to use it to gain plausibility for his scientific and philosophical
>claims. As we see in Johnson's remarks above, he will use even ID's total
>failure to provide any scientific case as a basis for complaining that the
>"system" rejects good criticism. Even though his own arguments for ID, and
>the failure of Dembski, Behe, Hoyle, and the rest to provide
>scientifically respectable basis for ID, Johnson is *still* trying to get
>people to accept his position.
>
>Why? My guess is:
>
>1. A sick desire to prove himself "right" to his following of the
>intellectually under-achievers.
>
>2. His belief in his particular brand of Christianity, which, like most
>forms of Christianity, is always willing to sacrifice things like the
>truth about reality in order to get people to accept the "higher" truth
>(if you don't believe this, read "Defeating Darwinism") of belief in a
>Christian God.
I had the pleasure of hearing the evangelist Ravi Zacharias speak at OSU a
few years ago. One thing he said
that has really stuck with me is this: "Do not judge a philosophy by its
abuse."
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"One never knows, do one?"
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 21 2000 - 19:00:36 EDT