>I have learned much from what you have written. It is legitimate for people
>to analyze the data with whatever theory they want. The arena is open and
>may the best theory win. That is science at its best. You tell me if that is
>what is going on. I wonder if there are some theories that established
>journals will not publish for reasons other than purely scientific reasons.
Of course there are theories that will not be published because of politics,
personal jealously on the part of reviewers, and challenges to orthodoxy. I
have experienced this myself in trying to get articles published (especially
after I changed my views) However, if the author is persistent (sometimes
very persistent) AND the data presented in the paper is factually correct,
you can eventually find someone to publish it. It is easy to claim that an
article was rejected for political/philosophical reasons. I have reviewed
papers in my time and when I recommend rejection it is for the factual
information not being correct. I don't care if a person interprets the
facts differently.
>You tell me. I can judge theories in physics but not those in other areas. I
>expect people like you and others to help me through those issues. I do have
>a strong inclination in the theological/philosophical area and I must say
>that from what I have read in Phillip Johnson's books, I agree 100% with his
>theological/philosophical views.
I agree with Johnson's arguments against naturalism being wedded to science.
I disagree with him when he thinks any evolutionary view is automatically
naturalistic.
>p.s. I had our university library purchase the latest book by Johnson,
>"Defeating Darwinism by opening minds," but unfortunately someone checked it
>out before I could get to it. Have you read it?
Yes. It is an excellent outline of the philosophical reasons Christians
should reject evolution. But Johnson doesn't explain a single scientific
fact in the book. He doesn't provide any framework into which the finding
of a fish with fingers can be placed. In my opinion, this failure to explain
the facts of the world is the greatest weakness of Christian apologetics.
All we do is tell people why the other guy is wrong. We rarely tell the
reader why the facts fit our side.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm