For comment.
Keith
> ÝARN Intelligent Design Discussion
>ÝÝGeneral Discussion
>ÝÝID Progress Report
>
>
>The following ID progress report was just released by Phillip Johnson
>today. The LA Times and NY Times articles he refers to can be found on
>the ARN home page IN THE NEWS section.
>http://www.arn.org/docs/news/evolutionistsbattle040801.htm
>http://www.arn.org/docs/news/fingerprints032501.htm
>
>The Wedge: A Progress Report
>
>Phillip E. Johnson
>Berkeley, California, April 16, 2001
>
>Approximately ten years ago, I formulated the Wedge strategy with two
>related goals. The first was to legitimate the topic of intelligent
>design, and hence the critique of Darwinism and its basis in naturalistic
>philosophy, within the mainstream intellectual community. The second
>was
>to make the critique of naturalism the central focus of discussion in the
>religious world, replacing the deadlocked debate over the Genesis
>chronology which had enabled the Darwinists to employ the "Inherit the
>Wind
>stereotype" so effectively. The goals are intertwined because the
>approach
>which is capable of challenging the dominant philosophy in the secular
>world will also tend to attract the most interest in the religious
>world. Likewise, the secular world finds it fairly easy to ignore a view
>which it can categorize as marginal in the religious world, but very
>difficult to ignore a view which has widespread and growing public
>support.
>I believe that getting the right issues on the table for unprejudiced
>discussion is the all-important step. Once that is accomplished, it will
>be impossible to conceal for long that Darwinism is based on
>naturalistic
>philosophy rather than on scientific testing, and that unprejudiced
>evaluation of the scientific evidence points to the existence of
>intelligent causes in biology.
>
>I optimistically predicted at the beginning that both goals would be
>achieved by the start of the new millennium. That could be dated either
>at
>January 1, 2000 or, to give a bit of wriggle room, a year later. I was not
>ready to declare success on either of those dates, although I knew we
>were
>very close. The recent front page stories in the Sunday Los Angeles
>Times
>(March 25) and the Sunday New York Times (April 8), in the context of
>other
>developments, meet the criteria for success I have specified. One key
>development has been the publication of so many excellent articles and
>books written or edited by Wedge participants. The books by Michael
>Behe,
>William Dembski, and Jonathan Wells are already well known, and
>others just
>as important are on the way. Another key development has been the
>increasingly cordial and mutually respectful relations among the
>differing
>factions of those who advocate creation, or who merely oppose the
>dominant
>naturalistic system of thought control. Indeed, my own personal
>friendships cut right across the traditional divisions. Everyone who
>wants
>to encourage open-minded critical thinking about fundamental issues is
>our
>ally; only those who want to keep minds closed or confused are
>adversaries.
>
>This is a progress report, not a victory statement. One of my agnostic
>friends described the front page of the New York Times (especially
>Sunday)
>as "the most valuable intellectual property in the world." We have
>established a beachhead in that territory, but there are many difficult
>steps ahead. Most journalists and professors are still confused by an
>education that has taught them that science and naturalism are virtually
>the same thing. Theistic methodological naturalists still dominate the
>Christian academic world and the "religion/science" dialogue. Many
>people
>who are potentially on our side don't yet understand the importance of
>the
>rules of reasoning. They ask questions like "Couldn't God have used
>evolution?" or allow themselves to be pacified by spin doctors who
>reassure
>them that epistemic naturalism is merely a methodology confined to
>science.
>
>There is plenty of difficult (and fascinating) work ahead, but the Wedge
>is lodged securely in the crack. I am confident that there will be a
>continually growing public acceptance of the principle that intelligent
>causation is a legitimate subject for scientific investigation. Once the
>principle is accepted that we should distinguish between the
>philosophical
>support for Darwinism and the claimed empirical support, the train is
>already moving along the logical track and it will not stop until it
>reaches its destination. The inadequacy of the Darwinian mechanism to
>account for complex specified information and irreducible complexity is
>only the first subject to have emerged into the mainstream, and others
>will
>follow. The importance of this intellectual movement is by no means
>limited to science. Scientific naturalism has done its greatest damage
>in
>the arts and humanities.
>
>The initial goals of the Wedge strategy have been accomplished. As
>Winston
>Churchill said after a crucial victory, it's not the beginning of the end,
>but it is the end of the beginning.
>
>Phillip E. Johnson
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 17 2001 - 13:39:12 EDT