In a message dated 1/11/00 8:12:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< http://www.probe.org/docs/philjohn.html
Probe Ministries
---
Why Does the University Fear Phillip Johnson?
Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D.
---
Who Is Phillip Johnson?
*snip far over-reaching hero-worship and embellished history ['beauty queen
wife? com eon - I've seen pictures of the guy...]*
Johnson's primary task seems to be continually provoking the scientific
community into facing the reality of its naturalistic presuppositions.
**** Maybe he sees it that way, but that brings up a good point: WHY is this
the task of a law professor? Shouldn't he be 'provoking' the legal
establishment?
In earlier years, the scientific establishment was able to dismiss
creationists
and not officially respond. But when a tenured law professor from Berkeley
starts messing with your head, people start answering back. The National
Academy of Sciences has issued two publications in the last two years
trying to stem the tide.{1} The cracks in Darwinian evolution are beginning
to show.
**** And all because of Johnson... Yeah... Sure...
What Could a Law Professor Say About Evolution?
**** My question exactly...
What could a legal scholar possibly have to say about evolution? Many in
the academic community have raised the same question as Phillip Johnson
has visited their university. In his own words Johnson states: "I approach
the creation-evolution dispute not as a scientist but as a professor of law,
which means among other things that I know something about the ways
that words are used in arguments."{2}
***** And it also shows, among other things, how someone with no bniology
background can make nonsensical arguments against something they know nothing
about because they believe style to be more important than substance.
Specifically what Johnson noticed was that both the rules of debate about
the issue as well as the word evolution itself were defined in such a way as
to rule out objections from the start. Science is only about discovering
naturalistic causes of phenomena, therefore arguing against the sufficiency
of natural causes is not science! Also the "fact of evolution" is determined
not by the usual definition of fact such as collected data or something like
space travel which has been done, but as something arrived by majority
vote!
***** What bullshit.
Steven J. Gould said, "In science, fact can only mean 'confirmed to
such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"{3}
**** Yes - and how does expert-of-all-experts Johnson interpret that?
Bohlin? Why, they say it is 'popular vote'! Idiots....
In the early chapters of Darwin on Trial, Johnson does an excellent job of
summarizing the evidence that has been around for decades calling
Darwinian evolution into question. These include problems with the
mechanism of mutation and natural selection, problems with finding
transitional fossils between major groups when they should be numerous,
***WHY should they be numerous?
problems with the molecular evidence for common descent,
**** THAT is funny! Having read Johnson's pamphlet, I can easily say that
his grasp of the molecular issues is comical at best! He writes an entire
non-cited chapter based on 3 references and it is called 'authoritative' by
many - many also ignorant of the issue, it seems...
and severe problems with any scenario for the origin of life.
**** Which has nothing to do with evolution anyway...
In a chapter titled "The Rules of Science" Johnson excels in illuminating
the
clever web evolutionists have drawn to insulate evolution from
criticism.{4}
**** I wonder - is it as 'clever' as placing ID beyond inquiry? As claiming
that in the end, no matter what evidence is put forth, the creationist/IDist
will ALWAYS reject or ignore it in order to proclaim creation 'true'?
In order to limit discussion to naturalistic causes, science is
defined in purely naturalistic terms.
***** Oh, how terrible!! Why, scientists of all stripes should be
interjecting the supernatural every time they run into a complicated problem!
In the Arkansas creation law decision,
Judge Overton said science was defined as being guided and explained by
natural law, testable, tentative, and falsifiable. Overton got this from the
so-
called expert testimony of scientists collected for the trial by the ACLU.
**** And the witnesses for the creationists? ICR zealots and others with
zany anti-evolution ideas. You will notice that even Johnsons own profession
- the law - found creationism to be religious.
These criteria were used against creation on the one hand to say that a
creator is not falsifiable, and also that the tenets of creation science
were
demonstrably false. How can something be non-falsifiable and false at the
same time?
**** Simple - you have mentioned two different things Ray - can't you see
that? Of course not - creationists believe creationism and creator to be the
same.
The conflict enters in when one realizes that creation by Darwinist
evolution is as un- observable as creation by a supernatural creator. No one
has ever observed any lineage changing into another and the few fossil
transitions that exist are fragmentary and disputable.
**** Directly observable, probably not. Indirectly observable, yes. Then, I
haven't seen the bible god create anything lately, or perform any
'impressive' miracles...
"As an explanation for modifications in populations, Darwinism is an
empirical doctrine. As an explanation for how complex organisms came into
existence in the first place, it is pure philosophy."{5}
**** What a cracker jack law professor! Make a strawman and call it logical!
In a chapter titled "Darwinist Religion" Johnson points out that despite the
claims of scientists that evolution is secular, it is loaded with religious
and
philosophical implications. Most definitions of evolution emphasize its lack
of purpose or goal. This makes evolution decidedly non-purposive in
contrast to a theistic, purposive interpretation of nature.
**** What insight.... But I wonder - what are the tenets of this
evolution-based religion? Who/what is the figurehead?
If it is the philosophic opposite of theism, evolution must be religious
itself. Darwin
himself constantly argued the superiority of descent with modification over
creation. If scientific arguments can be made against theism, why can't
scientific arguments be made for theism?
***** Because theistic arguments are illogical and not reality based.
Darwin on Trial continues to sell, to be read, and to influence those open
to consider the evidence. Since Johnson is not a scientist his book is
highly
readable to the educated layman. If you have never picked it up, you owe it
to yourself to read what has become a classic in the creation/evolution
controversy.
***** It influences those too ignorant to know better, I will agree. As a
lawyer Johnson makes a good case, I'm sure. Then, thats what lawyers do.
Johnson Extends His Case against Evolution into Law and Education.
Over the years of speaking on the creation/evolution issue I have been
asked many times why people get so upset over this issue. If it is just a
question of scientific accuracy, why does it produce such emotional
extremes? The answer, of course, is that the creation/evolution debate
involves much more than science. At question is which world view should
hold sway in making public decisions.
***** Oh thats it. Why, evolutionists are a powerful lobby in Washington.
Just the other day, I saw all of the presidential candidates say how much
evolution has influenced their lives....
In Phil Johnson's second book, Reason in the Balance, he makes this very
point when he says, "What has really happened is that a new established
religious philosophy has replaced the old one. Like the old philosophy, the
new one is tolerant only up to a point, specifically, the point where its
own
right to rule the public square is threatened."{6}
**** He must be talking about the new right-wing brand of Christianity...
The old philosophy Johnson speaks of is the theistic or Judeo-Christian
world view and the new philosophy is the materialist or naturalistic world
view. Johnson has referred to Reason in the Balance as his most significant
and important work. That is because it is here that he lays the all
important
philosophical groundwork for the scientific, legal, and educational
battleground of which the creation/evolution controversy is only a part.
That we no longer live in a country dominated by Judeo-Christian
principles should be inherently obvious to most.
***** LOL!!!! I guess Ray and friends don't read the papers too much....
But what many have
missed is the concerted effort by the intellectual, naturalistic community
to
eliminate any possibility of debate of the worthiness of their position. On
page 45 Johnson says,
"Modernist discourse accordingly incorporates semantic devices_such as
the labeling of theism as religion and naturalism as science_that work to
prevent a dangerous debate over fundamental assumptions from breaking
out in the open. As the preceding chapter showed, however, these devices
become transparent under the close inspection that an open debate tends to
encourage. The best defense for modernist naturalism is to make sure the
debate does not occur."{7}
***** This pamphlet, large font and wide margins and all, belongs with the
rest of Johnson's writings - circular file. What 'debate'? Why should we
waste time engaging slick showmen in public 'debates' where they will skirt
the scientific issues and try to win sympathy from the audience by appealing
to religion, as they ALWAYS do in these debates? What does that show -
except that the average layperson has a much stronger grasp of their
religious beliefs than they do of science.
Johnson is quick to point out that there is not some giant conspiracy, but
simply a way of thinking that dominates the culture, even the thinking of
many Christians.
Therefore, in the realm of science when considering the important question
of the existence of a human mind, only the biochemical workings of the
brain can be considered. Not because an immaterial reality has been
disproved, but because it is outside the realm of materialistic science and
therefore not worth discussing.
***** Actually, testing for the supernatural is impossible. Its worthiness
for discussion is irrlevent - but it makes for good ol' religious pandering,
so Johnson et al. say that ad infinitum. Maybe he - with his excellent grasp
of all things scientific - can devise some tests for the supernatural.
Allowing the discussion in the first place
lays bare a discussion of fundamental assumptions, the very thing that is to
be avoided.
In education, "The goal is to produce self-defining adults who choose their
own values and lifestyles from among a host of alternatives, rather than
obedient children who follow a particular course laid down for them by
their elders."{8}
***** LOL!!! Tell THAT to Suday school teachers! What a laugh! The irony
is killing me....
The reason, of course, is if God is outside the scientific
discussion of origins, then how we should live must also exclude any
absolute code of ethics. This also precludes the underlying assumptions
from being discussed.
**** That is because God is outside of the realm of scientific investigation.
Johnson and Bohlin don't seem to grasp that.
In law, naturalism has become the established constitutional philosophy.
Rather than freedom of religion, the courts are moving to a freedom from
religion. The major justification is that "religion" is irrational when it
enters
the domain of science or a violation of the first amendment in public
education. "Under current conditions, excluding theistic opinions means
giving a monopoly to naturalistic opinions on subjects like whether humans
are created by God and whether sexual intercourse should be reserved for
marriage."{9} What then are the strategies for breaking the monopoly?
Can Darwinism Be Defeated?
The main thing Christian parents and teachers can do is to teach young
thinkers to understand the techniques of good thinking and help them tune
up their baloney detectors so they aren't fooled by the stock answers the
authorities give to the tough questions.{10}
**** Yes - like 'God did it' - the stock answers given by the religious right
when addressign scientific issues.
So says Phillip Johnson in his recent book, Defeating Darwinism. (For a
fuller review see Rick Wade's article, Defeating Darwinism: Phil Johnson
Steals the Microphone.) Johnson is at his best here, relaying the many
semantic and argumentative tricks used to cover up the inadequacies of
Darwinism. In the chapter "Tuning Up Your Baloney Detector,"
**** A theme stolen from the late Carl Sagan.... Brilliant man, that law
professor...
Johnson introduces the reader to examples of the use of selective evidence,
appeals
to authority, ad hominem arguments, straw man arguments, begging the
question, and lack of testability.
**** So he HAS read creationist books!
This chapter will give you a good grasp of
logical reasoning and investigative procedure.
Johnson also explains the big picture of his strategy to weaken the
stranglehold of Darwinism on the intellectual community. He calls it the
wedge. Darwinism is compared to a log that seems impenetrable. Upon
close investigation, a small crack is discovered. "The widening crack is the
important but seldom recognized difference between the facts revealed by
scientific investigation and the materialist philosophy that dominates the
scientific culture."{11} In order to split the log, the crack needs to be
widened. Inserting a triangular shaped wedge and driving the pointed end
further into the log can do this. As the wedge is driven further into the
log,
the wider portions of the wedge begin widening the crack.
Johnson sees his own books as the pointed end of the wedge, finding the
crack and exposing its weaknesses. Other books in these initial efforts
would certainly include the pioneering works of Henry Morris,{12} Duane
Gish,{13} Charles Thaxton,{14} and even the agnostic Michael
Denton.{15}
***** Charlatans unite!
Following close behind and fulfilling the role of further
widening the crack are the works of J. P. Moreland,{16} Michael
Behe,{17} and William Dembski.{18} What is needed now to widen the
crack further and eventually split the log are larger numbers of theistic
scientists, philosophers, and social scientists to fill in the ever widening
portions of the wedge exposing the weaknesses of naturalistic assumptions
across the spectrum of academic disciplines.
Here Johnson's strategy meshes nicely with Probe Ministries. Much of our
energy is spent educating young people in a Christian world view through
Mind Games Conferences, the ProbeCenter in Austin, Texas, and our
website (www.probe.org). We share with Johnson the joy of encouraging
and opening doors for young people in the academic community. Johnson
says,
**** Gee - a ministry that also is scientific! Amazing!
What a bore - so much misplaced hero-worship in one spot. The sad thing is,
they don't even see how silly many of Johnson's arguments are....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 10:55:30 EST