Reflectorites
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:22:21 -0500, Ed.Babinski@furman.edu wrote:
EB>Forwarded from a friend of mine, Tod Montgomery:
[continued from part 1/2]
EB>Dr. Johnson, why do you strive to debase science while at the same time
>courting scientific credibility by using scientific sounding arguments to
>make your point?
Johnson is not attacking science per se, but the *philosophy* of
materialistic-naturalism which has captured science.
EB>What explanatory power does ID have, other than to say
>"POOF, GOD DID IT" and nothing more?
If Montgomery had actually read any ID literature he might have
understood that ID, as a basic scientific theory, doesn't say anything about
"God". All ID claims is that there is scientific evidence that the natural
world was designed by an Intelligent Designer. It makes no claims about
the identity of the Designer:
"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role
of designer. We can determine that a system was designed by examining
the system itself, and we can hold the conviction of design much more
strongly than a conviction about the identity of the designer. In several of
the examples above, the identity of the designer is not obvious. We have no
idea who made the contraption in the junkyard, or the vine trap, or why.
Nonetheless, we know that all of these things were designed because of the
ordering of independent components to achieve some end." (Behe M.J.,
"Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p196)
"How then will science "officially" treat the question of the identity of the
designer? Will biochemistry textbooks have to be written with explicit
statements that "God did it"? No. The question of the identity of the
designer will simply be ignored by science. The history of science is replete
with examples of basic-but-difficult questions being put on the back burner.
For example, Newton declined to explain what caused gravity, Darwin
offered no explanation for the origin of vision or life, Maxwell refused to
specify a medium for light waves once the ether was debunked, and
cosmologists in general have ignored the question of what caused the Big
Bang. Although the fact of design is easily seen in the biochemistry of the
cell, identifying the designer by scientific methods might be extremely
difficult. In the same way, Newton could easily observe gravity, but
specifying its cause lay centuries in the future. When a question is too
difficult for science to deal with immediately, it is happily forgotten while
other, more accessible questions are investigated. If philosophy and
theology want to take a crack at the question in the meantime, we scientists
should wish them well, but reserve the right to jump back into the
conversation when science has something more to add." (Behe M.J.,
"Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p251)
EB>Dr. Johnson, if William Paley, whom you quoted, was right in
>that complexity requires a designer, how do you reconcile this
>with the infinitely complex mind of a creator? In other words, who
>or what designed God's infinitely complex mind?
See above. ID theory makes no claim about the origin of the Designer,
or the Designer's mind.
EB>Dr. Johnson, if evolutionary biology can be so easily dismissed by a lawyer
>with no training in the biological sciences, how is it that scientists have
>not seen the error or their ways, and why are your views so ridiculed by
>reputable scientists. Did God set you up to be the butt of a grand, cosmic
>joke?
Johnson's argument is not so much with the *facts* of evolutionary biology
but the naturalistic *rules of reasoning* that have captured science in
general, and evolutionary biology in particular.
EB>Why does your "evidence" always consist of tearing down the evidence in
>favor on evolution? Shouldn't your evidence be positive and stand on its
>own merit?
Johnson *does* adduce positive evidence. That is in fact what ID is all about.
But it is also necessary to present the negative evidence against the rivals
of design, the main one of which is Darwinism, because, as Lewontin pointed
out: "...to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must
first get an incorrect view out." (Lewontin R., New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997, p28. http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19970109028R@p2)
EB>There were several more of these, but you get the picture.
Yes. We do indeed "get the picture"-about Montgomery!
EB> I also spent
>some time trying to word the question that we had discussed previously in
>such a way that it wouldn't go over the heads of the audience.
See above where Montgomery criticises Johnson for doing the same thing.
EB>As PJ finished the chairman of the Philosophy Department
>gave a short talk that was supposed to be a rebuttal, but turned
>out to be insipid, and not at all incisive. I honestly don't
>remember what he said, because it didn't make any sense.
Maybe it went over *Montgomery's* head!
EB>I suspected that Johnson had met with him before the show
>and gave his OK. If not, he might as well have. I thought "where
>the f--- is the chair of the Biology department? Christ, I could have
>done a better job than the Philosophy guy did."
Montgomery asks a good question "where... is the chair of the Biology
department? The fact is that where Johnson speaks at universities, the
Biology departments, like a medieval priesthood afraid of hearing heretical
views, routinely boycott his lectures.
One would have thought that if Johnson is so lacking in "training in the
biological sciences" that the best thing that the Biology departments could
do is show up in force and refute his arguments. That they don't show up is
evidence that they cannot refute his arguments.
BTW Johnson has personally debated eminent biology professors like
Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Douglas Futuyma, and William
Provine, to name a few, and they have been unable to refute his arguments.
EB>Then things started to go downhill from there. Johnson called
>for questions from the audience so I thought "here's my chance".
>Unfortunately, I had to make a decision. Should I just go in with
>the viral DNA question and seem to be dodging the issues he
>raised in his talk, or should I go with another? I decided to go with
>both (a terrible mistake as it turns out) and chose the one at the
>top of my list above. As I stepped up to the mike I got a little
>nervous, and rambled on about 20 seconds too long, so that
>before I got to my second question, Johnson had made some
>funny faces, making me feel like a rambling fool.
Sounds like the problem was not Johnson's!
EB>So I DIDN'T GET TO THE VIRAL DNA QUESTION! DAMN!
>I was so frustrated that I could hardly stand up and I didn't follow a
>thing of what he said in response (believe me I tried, but he was just too
>opaque). To this day, I have no idea what the heck he was talking about,
>and I felt pretty bad about the whole thing for a long time.
The main problem indeed is due to Montgomery's lack of comprehension
of what Johnson is talking about. But this is nothing new. On his tapes
Johnson remarks how unable many of those whose minds have been
steeped in naturalistic ways of thinking are in understanding what he is
getting at.
EB>During his answer to another person's question Johnson said
>that Carl Sagan was an atheist before, but his opinion is quite
>different now and insinuated that he's not very happy in his final >resting place.
That's a little joke that Johnson makes on his tapes to Christian audiences.
Of course if Christianity is true, what Johnson said is the sober truth.
Mind you, it cuts both ways. Sagan said some pretty nasty things about
Christianity while he was alive. The title of his last book, "Demon Haunted
World" implies that the Christian God is a demon.
As an interesting aside, on one of his tapes Johnson relates how his friend,
atheist evolutionary professor William Provine, who was at the same
university as Sagan, invited Sagan and his wife to have dinner with
Johnson. Johnson related that the Sagan's were very uncomfortable in
Johnson's presence and behaved like "barbarians" and were obviously
"deeply threatened". Obviously Sagan knew what was in store for him if
Johnson was right.
EB>That was more than I could take, and after the whole thing was
>over, I took my books up to be signed. And do you know what,
>the weasel didn't even stop talking to this other guy while he
>signed my books. Didn't even look at me except a passing
>glance.
Given Montgomery's own description of himself as looking "like a rambling
fool", and judging by this email, I would suspect that Johnson was trying to
avoid getting into an argument with Montgomery. He is very experienced
at this sort of thing and Montgomery's anger is not new at Johnson's
lectures.
EB>At that point I said (rather loudly) that I thought his remark
>about Dr. Sagan had been flip, unkind, uncalled for, and less than
>should be expected of someone who claims to be of such high
>caliber. I added "I suppose I should have expected it from
>someone who writes to a tenth grade level and understands
>science about as well." He didn't like that at all. He said "well I
>could take some lessons from you about being unkind, couldn't I?"
>By this time several people took note and I said "You just can't
>take criticism from people who disagree with you.
I find it interesting how less self-aware evolutionists project on to others
what appears to be a mirror-image of themselves. It probably wouldn't have
mattered what Johnson had said. Montgomery probably would have gone
up to Johnson on the pretext of getting his books signed in order to start an
argument with Johnson.
EB>He was walking away very quickly and I was left to deal with
>the people around me, most of whom had not heard the entire
>exchange. One guy pointed out to me in a somewhat
>condescending tone that Johnson's arguments were impeccable
>and that he'd really done a good job on the faulty foundations of
>science and that atheists like me had a lot to lose if we were
>wrong. I said "how can you be so sure that I'm an atheist,
>anyway? Isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to make any
>assumptions about someone's religious belief that you've never
>met?
Seeing that Sagan was one of the world's leading atheists, and Montgomery
was very upset at Johnson's remarks about Sagan, it sounds like a
reasonable assumption. Besides, Montgomery does not say the man was
wrong!
EB>He apologized (a bit sheepishly--no pun intended). I said that I
>wasn't about to get into it with him at that moment (my adrenaline
>was way too high at that moment for any reasonable semblance
>of a discussion). But I did say that I thought it was sad that
>countless generations of people have cut each other's throats
>because they couldn't agree on what was to become of them
>after their throats were cut, and that about summed up Christianity
>for me. He was taken aback and I headed for the door and a
>quick smoke before returning home.
Montgomery doesn't seem to be aware of how crass his own behaviour
was, in a largely Christian meeting. Even on his own account what he said
was far worse than what was said to him.
His comments about his "adrenaline" sounds very much like he had planned
to have a fight with Johnson, but when Johnson recognising the all-to-
familiar signs, walked away, Montgomery off-loaded his aggression on an
innocent bystander.
EB>So I managed not to spend any money and had an interesting
>time, to say the least. Wish I'd thought quicker on my feet, but
>what the hell.
If Montgomery wants to be an effective critic of Johnson, it would help if
he first tried to understand what Johnson is saying.
And it might help Montgomery personally to consider why he gets so angry
at hearing any criticisms of evolution, if it is only a scientific theory, and
not a substitute religion?
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish
Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs
promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or
the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not
actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no
longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure
that you are a dead duck in our trade." (Gould, Donald, "Letting poetry
loose in the laboratory", New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p51)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 16:08:22 EST