RE: [asa] Phillip Johnson quote on ID

ID is religion, much as the proponents try to cover it publicly. And more
generally, it is philosophy. As religion and philosophy, I believe it is
valuable (even though those who promote it may use faulty religious or
philosophical assumptions as part of the explanation).

But ID is also science, although in only a partial sense. Again, it may not
be good science, or it may utilize some wrong assumptions and underutilize
some of the evidence, and in many of these ways it is "pseudoscience". But
in some sense it does qualify as a scientific theory. Recall Loren
Haarsma's excellent paper, Is Intelligent Design "Scientific"?
(http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/Messiah2005/papers/IsIDScientific_ASA2005.
htm).

Since I started this particular thread by posting Johnson's statement, let
me also point out what he actually said. " I also don't think that there is
really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a
comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it
might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design
theory that's comparable."

That doesn't mean that they don't have what they consider a scientific
theory. What he is admitting, perhaps embarrassingly so for the ID
movement, is that their theory can't account for the whole "big picture" of
biological reality in the same way that the Darwinian (i.e. evolutionary)
theory claims to explain. A theory doesn't have to be comprehensive in
order to be a scientific theory - I don't think anyone who knows about
science would seriously claim that it does.

But what a good theory must do is to explain the known sets of fact, and
hopefully go beyond to provide a better or at least equally plausible
explanation. That is the value of good theories, is they explain more about
the world than the current paradigm. Johnson is admitting that ID doesn't
currently do that, at least in the biological realm.

What should be especially embarrassing to the ID movement is Johnson's
admission that "No product is ready for competition in the educational
world." That is even more devastating than the other statements he made,
because it is (or should be) a death blow to any attempt to insert ID into
educational programs, at least until they finish working out a completely
"comparable alternative" to the standard model.

Jon Tandy

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Nucacids
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:08 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Phillip Johnson quote on ID

Hi Coope,

Thanks for finding that! I have often been accused of peddling
pseudoscience, but I have always made it clear from the start that I do not
consider ID or my views to be science. This definition clearly shows I am
not peddling pseudoscience.

- Mike Gene

----- Original Message -----

From: George Cooper <mailto:georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>

To: asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:48 AM

Subject: RE: [asa] Phillip Johnson quote on ID

It is pseudoscience by definition:

"Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice
that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience]

"Coope"

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:12 AM
To: Jon Tandy; 'ASA'
Subject: Re: [asa] Phillip Johnson quote on ID

So if there isn't a scientific theory & it's not religion, what is it?

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----

From: Jon Tandy <mailto:tandyland@earthlink.net>

To: 'ASA' <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:30 AM

Subject: [asa] Phillip Johnson quote on ID

This was mentioned on your blog, but I don't recall that it's been quoted on
this list. Phillip Johnson, as interviewed by Berkeley Science Review
(http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10
<http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution>
&article=evolution):

""I considered [Dover] a loser from the start. Where you have a board
writing a statement and telling the teachers to repeat it to the class, I
thought that was a very bad idea."

"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at
the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian
theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out
scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out
a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have
affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's
doable, but that's for them to prove.No product is ready for competition in
the educational world."

Jon Tandy

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Heddle
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 4:17 PM
To: George Murphy
Cc: David Opderbeck; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Theistic Evolutionists Clos e Ranks - Let the
Bloodletting Begin!

Here is a recap of Miller's talk when he came to CNU:

http://helives.blogspot.com/2008/03/kenneth-millers-cnu-talk.html

  _____

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.0/1506 - Release Date: 6/17/2008
4:30 PM

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 18 11:43:28 2008