Reflectorites
Here is an interview in a Christian magazine of Phil Johnson, by fellow
IDer Nancy Pearcey.
Johnson puts his finger on the ultimate self-refutation of Darwinism, that
Darwin himself in his later years came to realise, namely if Darwinism is true
it could not know whether it was true or false:
"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the
convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind
of the lower animals are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would
any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any
convictions in such a mind?" (Darwin C.R., letter to W. Graham,
July 3rd, 1881, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin,"
[1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).
The atheistic evolutionists on this List talk a lot about rationality, but
where do they get rationality from out of random mutations and differential
reproduction?
An atheist using reason to deny God's existence is like a computer using
Microsoft software to deny Bill Gates' existence!
Steve
=========================================================
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/07-29-00/closing_2.asp
WORLD Magazine
July 29, 2000
Volume 15
Number 29
[...]
JUDGMENT CALLS
Wedge issues
An intelligent discussion with Intelligent Design's designer
By Nancy R. Pearcey
It's not only in politics that leaders forge movements. Phillip Johnson has
developed what is called the "Intelligent Design" movement, which
contends that time plus chance (the mechanism for change in Darwinism)
could not bring about the complex order of life around us. Mr. Johnson is a
Berkeley law professor who, spurred by the crisis of a failed marriage,
converted to Christianity in midlife. He has written many books including,
most recently, The Wedge of Truth.
Q: You tell of a young man who went to Harvard and lost his Christian
faith. Why is this an all-too-common story?
A: Every course this young man took at Harvard was based on the
assumption of naturalistic philosophy-the idea that everything is governed
by chance and natural law-so that even if God existed, He would be
incapable of doing anything. God's existence was not so much disproved as
rendered irrelevant to everything worth studying.
Q: The crucial prop for naturalism is Darwinism. What's the cutting-edge
issue in evolution today?
A: The debate centers on one fundamental issue: Are natural forces
information-creating? Any text, whether a book or the DNA code, requires
a complex, non-repeating arrangement of letters. Can that kind of order be
produced by chance or law? The answer is no. Chance produces
randomness, while physical law produces simple, repetitive order (like
using a macro on your computer to print a phrase over and over). The only
thing that produces complex, non-repeating, specified order is an intelligent
agent.
Q: What happens when Darwinism is applied outside science itself-to social
life and morality?
A: The field of evolutionary psychology applies Darwinism to human
behavior, and the results are grim. The logical conclusion of Darwinism is
that all our actions are the results of brain states produced by some
combination of chance and physical law-which undermines the very notion
of moral choice. So arch-Darwinian Richard Dawkins says we are merely
"robots" programmed by DNA to make more DNA.
7Q: What does Darwinism imply for the science of the mind?
A: Consistent Darwinists say there is no single, central "self," residing
somehow within the body, that makes decisions, holds opinions, loves, and
hates. That's dismissed as old-fashioned dualism. In the currently popular
"computational" theory, the mind is a set of computers that solve specific
problems forwarded by the senses. For example, Steven Pinker of MIT
says the idea of a unified self is merely a useful illusion, selected by
evolution because our body needs to be able to go one direction at a time.
Q: Computers function without consciousness. If the mind is a computer,
why are we conscious beings?
A: Some neuroscientists say we aren't-that consciousness is an illusion.
Philosopher Paul Churchland says mental states do not exist, and suggests
that we replace language about beliefs and desires with statements about
the nervous system's physical mechanisms-the activation of neurons and so
on.
This conclusion is so contrary to ordinary experience that many
neuroscientists search for some cut-off point where the logic of Darwinism
does not apply. But, of course, any stopping point is completely arbitrary.
John Searle, my famous colleague here at Berkeley, accepts naturalistic
evolution while insisting that it cannot explain the human mind. Critics say
he simply jumps ship, and they're right.
Q: Your book says the key issue is the definition of knowledge itself.
A: The prevailing definition of knowledge rests on the so-called fact/value
distinction. "Facts" are objective, rational, and true for everyone; "values"
are personal, subjective, and valid only for believers. Real knowledge can
be had only of "facts." That's why Darwinian evolution is permitted in the
science classroom, where we teach knowledge. But creation is relegated to
the comparative religion class, where we explore people's subjective
beliefs.
Q: It seems that even those with Christian belief may hold correct doctrines
but treat them as meaningful only within a community of faith.
A: The typical tactic is to cede to science the authority to determine the
"facts," then try to salvage some area for Christian faith in the realm of
"value." But since "values" are not granted the status of genuine
knowledge, what you put there is eventually dismissed as subjective
fantasy. Christians need to insist that they are making genuine knowledge
claims. I like to put it this way: Is there any "-ology" in theology? Are we
studying anything real?
[...]
(c) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 WORLD Magazine.
mailbag@worldmag.com
=========================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Duke of Argyll (Good Words, April 1885, p. 244) has recorded a few
words on this subject, spoken by my father in the last year of his life. as...in
the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to
some of hid own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and
upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the
wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature-I said it was
impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the
expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at
me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming
force; but at other times,' and he shook his bead vaguely, adding, 'it seems
to go away."' (Darwin F., in Darwin F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin,"
[1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 26 2000 - 18:02:07 EDT