Johnson, etc.
David Campbell (bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu)
Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:38:31 -0500
The problem with something such as Johnson's group or the ICR being
inclusive of various faiths is how they present themselves to different
audiences. I recently looked at the ICR web site, trying to locate a
contact address. They clearly were marketing themselves as Biblical and
Christian, yet the emphasis is on their version of creationism rather than
the gospel. The popular impression of ID, young-earth, etc. is that it is
a conservative Christian apologetic. This is a problem of discernment on
the part of the audience as well as communication from the source. For
example, there is some popular impression that Behe's claims support
special creation of species. This is hardly confined to scientific issues.
The presence of politically right-wing books with no explicit theological
content in Christian bookstores and catalogs is an obvious example. My
future sister-in-law works at a local Christian bookstore and jokes that
they ought to move various books to a new section labeled "Heresy". Both
the goals of the relevant organizations and the thinking of the general
public need clarified to combat this problem.
Johnson is not going to get very far towards the goal of making scientific
and philosophical change until he starts attacking the assumptions of
materialists. Right now he is adding bark to the log by accepting god of
the gap assumptions and bad scientific evidence. Separating evidence for
common descent from unbiblical philosphical ideas would be wedging.
Lawyers certainly can do good science; one of the experts on bivalves of
the west coast of North America is a Sierra Club lawyer, and plenty of
people have made important contributions to biology and paleontology
without having a degree in either field. However, to do so requires
producing work that demonstrates a thorough knowledge of the subject. It
also typically involves a willingness to learn from and work with trained
experts in the field.
David C.