Randy comments on Phil's appearance at the University of Texas
recently:
Randy is at randyisaac@aol.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
The Serious Newsletter, November 29, 1995
It seems we keep coming back to the Evolution debate, which is
fine with me. I am one person who thinks that productive things
can come from this debate.
>From Randy Isaac:
> LECTURE REVIEW
>
>On October 16, 1995, Phillip Johnson was hosted by the UT
philosophy >department in Austin, Texas. He gave a lecture on
naturalism with a >commentary by Steven Weinberg. The following
comments are my personal notes >and perspectives of that meeting.
>
>The lecture hall was literally packed. Students continued to
pour into the >hall well after every available seat and floor
space was occupied. Interest >in the topic was clearly strong.
Some classes had been assigned to attend >the lecture.
>
>Phillip Johnson (PJ) began by pointing out that there seems to
be general >agreement that the origin of life is a mystery. The
key to confidence that >this mystery can be solved is that
everything in between has been explained. > That is, since
evolution has been so successful in explaining everything >from
the origin of life to the present, then surely someday we will
also be >able to solve the mystery of the origin of life. PJ
wants to explore and >challenge this confidence that everything
has been explained. >
> He stated he was a Christian theist and would put aside an
invisible, >undetectable God. By this I believe he meant a Deist
type of God whose >involvement with the creation was not
discernible. His interest was only in >a God whose action was
evident in the world.
>
> PJ gave two examples of current philosophical views. On one
hand is John >Searle at Berkeley. John is a critic of
aritificial intelligence and a >critic of relativism. He
believes that mind is more than matter but he is >neither a
dualist nor a reductionist. His views are built on assumptions
>that include that the universe consists entirely of particles
and that >evolution occurred. On the other hand is Richard Rorty
who is a key >relativist and anti-objectivist. His views are
also based on the belief that >evolution occurred. Personally,
I'm not sure why PJ gave these examples. I >think he meant to
show that evolution was central to key world-views. But by
>showing two diametrically opposite world-views as being based on
evolution, >it seems to me that evolution is less likely to be
the progenitor of either. > That is, if two opposite conclusions
can be drawn from the same base, then >maybe the base really says
nothing about that topic. Perhaps his point was >the
pervasiveness of evolution--proponents of widely varying
philosophical >views seem to agree on evolution.
>
>PJ then expressed his view of evolution: "I doubt it." He gave
three >reasons why he was unconvinced by evolution. Before
giving those reasons, he >dismissed three other perspectives:
>1) science is by definition naturalistic. If so, then it would
all be a >circular argument.
>2) cosmological arguments for the existence of God (apparently
an irrelevant >God)
>3) theological arguments for Darwinism (e.g. since there is evil
in nature, >there is no God, or the Panda's thumb "no-designer"
argument by Gould) >
>Then he moved to his reasons for not believing in evolution.
His attack was >directed toward Richard Dawkins' blind watchmaker
hypothesis. >1)Limited scope of variation in species. He
commented on all sorts of >oft-cited variations such as peppered
moths, finch's beaks, Colorado potato >beetles, etc. and argued
that we have never observed variations large enough >to
accommodate a change in species.
>2)Evidence of non-gradual development of species. Here he built
on the Gould >and Eldridge work of punctuated equilibrium and
argued that their data >implies such an erratic pace of evolution
that it couldn't possibly have >happened.
>3)Embryological indications did not support evolution. He gave
some quotes >from embryologists indicating evolution didn't
follow from their work. > Although embryological similarities
have been used as proof of evolution, >current studies of embryos
show that such similarities are different from >that expected
from evolution.
>
>Personally, I was surprised that his "evidence" against
evolution was so >weak. None of it is new and all of it has been
addressed, I think. The >limited scope of observed variation is
expected; punctuated equilibrium >argues against gradualism, not
evolution; and embryology is not a necessary >proof of evolution.
>
>Next PJ asked "why, if evolution is so controversial, does it
continue?" He >asserted that it continues because the
"political" consequences of claiming >an error in the theory of
evolution are tremendous. This peer pressure keeps >it going.
He admitted there is reason to be concerned about religious right
>extremism and nihilism. But in reaction to those extremes, he
feels >Darwinism has survived by use of a stereotype: the only
alternative to >darwinism is young-earth creationism. He said
this was a false dichotomy. >
>Finally, PJ predicted a biology revolution in the near future as
a new >non-Darwinian view of the development of species comes to
pass. >
>Steven Weinberg (SW) then took the floor. His first comment was
to note that >PJ's congenial pleasant manner made it difficult
(but not impossible) to >refute him. I would concur that PJ's
approach is a refreshing change from >typical creationist
debators.
>
>SW pointed out several areas where he agrees with PJ:
>1)Truth is important. Objective reality vs "what works for me"
relativism. >2)No biblical literalism.
>3)Definition of naturalism. SW does think it is a moral choice:
it's tough >to argue that you must believe in naturalism or not.
>
>SW then pointed out that PJ has been remarkably silent on what
he does >believe and why. He feels that PJ's reasons for what he
believes may not be >based on any stronger logic than the belief
he attacks.
>
>SW stated it was impossible to prove that everything occurred
>naturalistically, but it could be shown to be plausible. It
could in >principle be disproved but it never has. It is
possible to find something >that couldn't have evolved (for
example something based on radically >different biomolecules) but
nothing has. Darwinism didn't prove naturalism >but made it
intellectually possible to maintain naturalism. There have been
>many challenges but none that were insurmountable.
>
>In contrast to PJ's view that it was political suicide to oppose
evolution, >SW felt that a scientist's greatest achievement would
be to find an error in >the theory of evolution. Many have tried
but the objections have been >resolved. Darwinism hasn't been
proven but the fact that no one has been >able to disprove it is
very good proof in itself.
>
>Finally he asked, how should society (as opposed to the
individual) consider >the differences of opinion on Darwinism.
He feels the universities should be >indifferent to the impact on
religion of evolution.
>
>PJ then commented that he believes in the rationality of value
and truth but >sees a strong anti-religious bias in today's
universities. >
>SW followed by saying that naturalism is continually under
attack. In >contrast to being the established, unquestioned bias
that PJ claims, >naturalism is attacked from all sides. He
didn't say but I presume he means >not only theism but astrology,
superstitions, new age, Eastern mysticism, >etc.
>
>Q&A: When asked about the fossil record, PJ claims that "no one
knows" >because the fossil record is so sparse. SW pointed out
that "miracles are >the only other option" to the Darwinist
interpretation.
>
>A student asked why his own religion, Hinduism, was considered
to be wrong. > I don't recall if PJ said anything but SW took the
opportunity to point out >that he had many friends who were
Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. and none had >ever tried to convert
him. Either they didn't believe what they said they >believed or
they didn't care if he went to hell.
>
>Someone asked PJ if God were a bungling engineer, obviously
referring the >Gould's approach. PJ of course pointed out there
was no bungling involved. >
>Finally, someone asked about the track record of success of
>materialism/naturalism. PJ of course feels it hasn't been so
successful. > But then he made an intriguing statement: "the
truth of neo-Darwinism is a >valid test of naturalism." This
sentence pinpointed for me the key concern I >have for PJ's
position. SW would, I believe, agree with that statement. > Only
he thinks that such truth has been shown whereas PJ thinks it
hasn't. > I feel this statement is fundamentally wrong. Neo-
Darwinism may or may not >be a true, or even nearly true,
description of the origin of species but that >has nothing to do
with the validity of philosophical naturalism. The
>unwillingness of PJ to differentiate between the the theory of
evolution and >evolutionism has forced him, I believe, into an
untenable position. > Opponents like SW are only to happy to
agree with him since they are >confident of their scientific
grounds for evolution.
>
>My own view is that the dialogue to be engaged on university
campuses and >theological circles is how naturalistic
explanations, no matter how complete >they may be at a physical
level, do not preclude a Creator and Sustainer. > Nor do those
explanations make our Creator irrelevant and invisible. Our
>Creator's power and glory are revealed by those observations. >
>Randy Isaac
>