[...]
CC>... Johnson and his gang of intellectual thugs ....
>we have almost pure trash like "Darwin on Trial," ...
>... I know how unreliable Stephen is at quoting, ...
>Johnson has not given up his campaign of lies and misrepresentations.
>... A sick desire to prove himself "right" to his following of the
>intellectually under_achievers. ...
>2. ... which, like most
>forms of Christianity, is always willing to sacrifice things like the truth
>...Johnson exposes essentially his entire fraud ...
>...He never had any scientific evidence to *begin* with.
[...]
Stephen
Thanks to Chris for his message warmly supporting my argument about
"the `body language' of a threatened `priesthood'". I encourage him
to keep up the good work! :_)
Chris
Since a portion of the evidence upon which I based my claims was in the remarks
that Jones quoted from Johnson, and since I encouraged the readers to
examine the
rest of the evidence (i.e., "Darwin on Trial," etc.), this is hardly a
question of
"body language." Since Johnson implicitly admits that he has little real
case, that
his position is based on his dislike of what he claims is the style of
argument of
evolutionists, one question is: Is the view of evolutionists regarding
Johnson a
matter of a "threatened priesthood," as Jones would have it, or a disgust
brought
on by the dishonesty, demagoguery, and general anti_rationality of Johnson (as
exhibited in great detail in his own books and interviews)?
Jones above says I'm supporting his view of evolutionists as a "threatened
priesthood." How so? Apparently *I'm* now considered by Jones to be part of
this
priesthood. But, I do not teach at any university or high school, and what
little of
my views on evolution that have been "published" have been so almost
entirely on
this list. Most of my friends do not even know that I have a deep interest
in this
topic.
Much of the point of my post was to point out:
1. That the quotation from Phillip Johnson that Jones so generously
supplied did
in fact give away his motives and his dishonesty, though I'm sure Johnson
did not
mean it to.
2. That the quotation showed that Johnson had no scientific case (which is why
there is *still*, after the two *hundred* years since Paley, no empirically
testable
predictions emanating from the creationist/ID "brain_trusts").
Since Jones deleted all but the words and phrases of mine which, taken out of
context, he thought he might make seem to support his views, let me offer the
Johnson quote once again for the reader's amusement:
"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)
The first sentence gives it away: He has no specific evidence that
Darwinism is a
pseudoscience that will collapse. This implies that he has no specific
evidence that
Darwinism is false. And *this* means that all of his ranting and raving that he
*did* have such specific evidence since at least the publication of
"Darwinism on
Trial" has been either lies or incredibly gross errors.
Now, if *you* were setting up some sort of academic forum for the debate of
some topic, and someone with no scientific knowledge or qualifications and who
had proved himself to be either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest (or
both) for several years demanded to be heard, would you feel inclined to invite
him (or those like him) merely because he (or they) claimed to have "the best
critical arguments," even though, in several books, he had not been able to
provide
any of any significance at all?
Oh, there *is* a "threatened priesthood," alright; nearly all variants of
creationist
Christianity (of which ID is, mainly -- with *very* few exceptions -- a
subtype).
They feel that one of their stronghold supersti -- er, beliefs -- is being
threatened.
If too many people accept that we might have evolved naturalistically,
there will
be little reason for them to accept so much of the rest of the crap
Christianity tries to cram down our throats and into our children. This is
one of the last bastions of mindless Christian theism, and it has to be
protected.
And, a point I did not make in the post to which Stephen responded: Most of
Johnson's claims *are* straw men. Johnson steadfastly refuses to understand
either
pure Darwinism or naturalistic evolutionary theory generally -- or he at least
*pretends* to not understand. A good-sized book could be written dealing with
just this aspect of Johnson's arguments in his books. I do not regard
myself as, by
any means, a pure Darwinist, because I think Margulis and others with
suggestions
of non-Darwinistic means by which genomes can acquire changes are very likely
right. Nevertheless, Darwinism is *hardly* pseudoscience. At best, it will be
shown to be, in its strictest forms, inadequate. After all, Darwin had *no*
knowledge of genetics as such, or of the incredible richness of the
possibilities of
information layering, retroviruses, and so on were not available to him for
consideration.
If you feel even *remotely* that Jones might be right, I urge you most
strongly to read
the paragraph from Johnson again, and then just *try* to find real_world
instances
of *scientists* attempting to put legal barriers in the way of *asking*
questions.
Then, ask yourself what rules of "reasoning" Johnson would like to use, and
what
alternatives to the "official story" *they* would allow. Would "Santa Claus
did it"
become an acceptable alternative? Yes, if we accept Johnson's epistemology.
Why? Because it's style of argument that is the arbiter of truth, not
reality and
whether one has any specific evidence that would be sufficient to convince a
rational person of the truth of one's claims. Remember, according to Johnson
himself, "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."
Oh, and remember, Johnson has published several books giving *everyone* who
is even slightly interested a "fair hearing," as have his colleagues Behe,
Dembski,
and many others. There is no wanting for fair hearing at all. He's already
*got* all
the "fair hearing" a person could want (not to mention herds of followers).
What
he is having trouble getting is *acceptance* of the crackpot theory that some
designers sat around and dreamed up the platypus, the giraffe, the tick,
bubonic
plague, botulism, flies, gingivitis, flatulence, boils, squids, lice,
flesh_eating
bacteria, cancer, and HIV, and then actually *created* them all, along with
many
others, *deliberately,* and that they spent nearly four billion years
manipulating
genes to do it (after first creating the initial Earthly life forms). Is
there any reason
to accept such a theory, any more than there is to accept the theory that Jimmy
Hoffa was abducted by aliens?
No, but Johnson and his confederacy of dunces don't care about such "minor"
details as actually *having* good criticisms of Darwinism or strong positive
support for their *own* theory; they want a "fair hearing" regardless.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 24 2000 - 02:56:22 EDT