>
> "In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific
> evidence that
> convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse
> once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is
> the
> way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they
> are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A
> real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to
> prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely upon
> enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the
> official
> story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
> welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they
> would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to
> caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely
> upon the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E.,
> "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism,"
> InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 2000, p.141)
They *do* welcome critics to *academic* forums for open debate. The problem
is that Johnson, et al, don't have much in the way of usable criticism.
Mostly they grotesquely misrepresent evolutionary theory and complain (as
above) because science doesn't take their *religious* beliefs as science.
If Johnson and his gang of intellectual thugs actually *had* "the best
critical arguments," they could have long since *published* them for *all*
of us to examine. Instead, we have almost pure trash like "Darwin on
Trial," "Reason in the Balance," "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds,"
and now, apparently, "The Wedge of Truth."
I'm only judging from recent interviews of Johnson and from Stephen's
quotes from the book, and I know how unreliable Stephen is at quoting, so
there's a lot of room for mis-guessing here. Nevertheless, it appears that
Johnson has not given up his campaign of lies and misrepresentations.
Unfortunately, Johnson has just enough right about social issues to enable
him to use it to gain plausibility for his scientific and philosophical
claims. As we see in Johnson's remarks above, he will use even ID's total
failure to provide any scientific case as a basis for complaining that the
"system" rejects good criticism. Even though his own arguments for ID, and
the failure of Dembski, Behe, Hoyle, and the rest to provide scientifically
respectable basis for ID, Johnson is *still* trying to get people to accept
his position.
Why? My guess is:
1. A sick desire to prove himself "right" to his following of the
intellectually under-achievers.
2. His belief in his particular brand of Christianity, which, like most
forms of Christianity, is always willing to sacrifice things like the truth
about reality in order to get people to accept the "higher" truth (if you
don't believe this, read "Defeating Darwinism") of belief in a Christian God.
Why Jones thinks that quoting passages such as the one above is beyond me,
because Johnson exposes essentially his entire fraud in that one paragraph;
it is the way Darwinists *argue* for their case that causes him to reject
naturalistic evolutionary theory, not any failure of their case(s). ". . .
it is not any scientific evidence" that convinces him (and no wonder; there
*is* no scientific evidence for his case), but rather merely his dislike of
what he regards as his opponents' *style*.
Only, it is not in the *final* analysis, as he claims. He never had any
scientific evidence to *begin* with.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 21 2000 - 01:39:05 EDT