Re: Comments on Phil Johnson seminar

Stephen Jones (sjones@iinet.net.au)
Sun, 17 Dec 95 08:51:04 EST

Burgy

On 11 Dec 95 19:48:23 EST you wrote:

JB>The following comments by an IBM colleague of mine, Randy
>Isaac (as ASA member; director of IBM's Austin Microprocessor
>Development lab):
>Randy comments on Phil's appearance at the University of Texas
>recently:
>Randy is at randyisaac@aol.com

JB>----------------------------------------------------
>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.

I find this highly significant. PJ must be hitting a raw nerve
somewhere!

JB>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.

This is the argument from success that PJ covers in RITB.

JB>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.

Agreed. A God whose actions are not evident in this world is
IMHO not worth believing in.

JB>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 covers these two philosophers in RITB. The issue there is the
existence of objectivity and truth. He shows that Rorty's philosophy
is self-refuting and Searle's as inconsistent.

JB>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.

This is important. Science has not always been naturalistic,
and it need not remain so. Methodological naturalism and
metaphysical naturalism are two entirely different propositions.

>2) cosmological arguments for the existence of God (apparently
>an irrelevant God)

Strange. Johnson wrote the foreword to The Creation Hypothesis
which contained very strong arguments by Hugh Ross concerning
the fine-tuning of the universe indicating a fantastic degree of
intelligent design.

>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)

The evil in nature arguments is self-refuting. If there is no God,
then ultimately there is no objective standard for good or evil.
Gould's no-designer argument only are valid if a designer must always
produce what human engineers consider perfect designs.

JB>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.

I agree. If Dawkins could demonstrate that small variations
accumulate into big ones, by a purely natural process of gene
selection, then there would be no debate. But even Gould
disagrees with Dawkins blind watchmaker model, as Johnson shows in
RITB.

JB>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.

Johnson's point is that there is no real mechanism in PE that could
explain the build-up of complex adaptations.

JB>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.

Agreed. Embryonic recapitulation is dead. Homologous organs do not
have homologous genes. There is no simple gene-character
correspondence. The molecular evidence does not reveal a sequential
pattern.

JB>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.

And personally I am surprise that these responses by Darwinists are so
weak! :-) Ultimately it shows the unfalsifiability of the amorphous
fog called "evolution".

JB>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.

I think this is over-simplifying PJ's argument. Clearly there are
claims of errors in theories of evolution. Johnson himself cites
Gould arguing that Dawkins's model is wrong. The real issue is
the metaphysical principle of Evolution. The Evolution that is
a fact, despite the problem that there is no agreed mechanism
for how it operated. To challenge Evolution itself would be
academic suicide.

JB>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.

Agreed. Johnson points out this continued carricature in RITB. Gould's
panda's thumb argument is based on this naive creationist stereotype.

JB>Finally, PJ predicted a biology revolution in the near future as
>a new non-Darwinian view of the development of species comes to
>pass.

Agreed. The signs are there. See recent Time article re the Cambrian
Explosion which has a heading "Beyond Darwinism".

JB>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.

This is important. YEC's have obviously done a lot of harm with
their *style* of debate.

JB>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.

Good!

JB>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.

This is the whole crux! Why should Weinberg's moral choice be
preferred over Johnson's? Indeed if Darwinism is true, can there
be any such thing as a moral choice?

JB>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.

I think PJ has been wise not to argue too much of what he personally
believes. He points out that this was a tactic used by Darwinists in
the Scopes trial against Bryan. Whether Johnson's view of
Christianity is true or even if Christianity is true, is irrelevant to
the question whether Darwinism is true. A Moslem or even an atheist
could think Darwinism is false.

JB>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.

This is a significant admission by Weinberg that "it was impossible to
prove that everything occurred naturalistically". There seems to be a
contradiction between this and "It could in principle be disproved".
The test "It is possible to find something that couldn't have evolved"
is a non-test. Darwinists would simply expand their theory to take in
the new form of life. They would call it a new Kingdom or invent a new
higher division than that. In any event, a new form of life (say)
silicon based, would not change Darwinists theory on carbon-based
life.

JB>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.

This misses the point. Scientists are always trying to find fame and
fortune by finding flaws in the theory of evolution. What is not
challenged is Evolution itself! The Evolution that is a fact - like
the Earth going around the sun. It is impossible to disprove something
that has been declared a Fact.

JB>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.

Shouldn't this be the other way around?

JB>PJ then commented that he believes in the rationality of value
>and truth but sees a strong anti-religious bias in today's
>universities.

JB>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.

Who is Weinberg trying to kid? It is only because naturalism is so
dominant that it is "attacked from all sides"

JB>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.

I agree! :-)

JB>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.

Good point!

JB>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.

Walter ReMine points out that evolutionists criticise creationists for
assume that if evolution is disproved that automatically proves
creation. Yet Gould's attempt to prove creationism wrong by his
panda's thumb argument, attempts the same thing in reverse.

JB>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.

I agree with PJ. Darwinism is just the creation-story for naturalism.
They stand or fall together. Johnson's point is that if Darwinism is
proven true, then it and naturalism deserve to rule and theism does
not even deserve its current minor status.

JB>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.

Unfortunately naturalistic explanations of *origins* if they became
fully comprehensive, would "make our Creator irrelevant and
invisible", in the eyes of the majority of mankind. But then who says
that naturalistic explanations *will* become fully comprehensive? Only
the naturalists! Johnson's point is that why should theists believe
the naturalists are right?

God bless.

Stephen

-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------