-----Original Message-----
From: John W. Burgeson [SMTP:burgy@compuserve.com]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 1997 2:00 pm
To: EVOLUTION Reflector
Subject: Comments on recent posts
I just today "caught up" with several day's worth of posts. The "Phil
Johnson bash" posts were interesting. My comment is simply that in 4 days
here at UT, I heard NONE of these kind of remarks made against Phil or his
ideas. Rather, the discussions centered on what he says quite clearly is
his primary thrust -- the place of theistic science.
Nor did I hear any "ad hominems." I guess, being largely a group of
philosophers, they knew better!
I hold no brief for Phil -- I am a methodological naturalist as far as
science is concerned. But I don't think some people are hearing him
acccurately -- their preconceptions are getting in the way.
In a future post I will talk a little bit about some of Al Plantigna's
ideas -- the difference between "Duhemian science" and "Augustinian
science." I think it will be pertinent to discussion of real issues.
One idea I have is this (I'm sure it is not very original): As I said, I
hold that methodological naturalism is a vital presupposition to "do
science." But I understand Phil when he objects to this as being "science
by arbitrary definition" and I see it violated, at least in a way, by
emminents such as Gould when he makes theological statements about the
Panda's thumb, or, as a more amusing example, (and this may not be Gould)
the Creator's engineering mistake in placing a sewage disposal line in the
center of our primary recreational area. So the debate seems worthwhile.
And what Dembski et. al. is doing is worth doing, whether one calls it
"science" or not. Johnson argues (I think) that calling it science" is
necessary for it to get proper recognition and attention. I doubt if I
agree with that, but I don't really have a vote anyway.
So tell me Johnson was wrong about AIDS research. Maybe he was. But I think
he was criticizing not the research, as such, but the arguments based upon
it, which he found unsatisfactory. In any case, right or wrong, that's a
whole different ballgame than this one.
And PLEASE don't tell me anymore that "idea X" has been refuted, when what
has happened is that Idea X has been challenged or argued against
somewhere. There is always (well -- almost always) a rebuttal possible.
Things are not that simple!
And don't bother telling me that person Y was wrong on topic Z, therefore
he is wrong on topic A. That's lazy "reasoning" and I've no time for it.
The forgoing written for Compuserve consumption; not directed at anyone
here, in particular.
Burgy