>Joel & I were both there; I heard something quite different, specifically,
>that within a year the debate over whether (or not) theistic
>science/intelligent design was a proper part of science would be settled.
>To suggest that within a year all theistic evolutionists would be
>"converted" seems to be an outrageous and wholly unbelievable claim;had he
>made this claim, I'd think someone might have called him down on it.
Burgy,
I think that Phil really might believe this. Note the hyperbole in the
following:
"The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was
Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a
change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview
that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of
Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or
naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science."~Phillip
E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct.
1996, p.47.
I do not think that Phil's sense of scientific history is that well
developed, but I do think that he thinks it is.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm