Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Phillip E. Johnson on Intelligent Design Creationism
... my personal view is that I identify the designer of life with the God of the Bible, although intelligent design theory as such does not entail that. Phillip JohnsonPhillip Johnson has just posted a long essay on Intelligent Design Creationism [Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects].
Like most IDiot arguments, this one relies on two main points: (1) evolution is wrong, (2) the bad guys are picking on us. There isn't one single scientific argument in favor of intelligent design.
This isn't really news but it's still worth pointing out. The Intelligent Design Creationists often claim that their case does not rely on disproving evolution but instead relies on positive evidence for intelligent design. Well, here was their big chance to prove it in an essay by the founding father. They blew it. I hate hypocrisy.
Yup, this guy is acting like a politician. I've also blogged about this over at
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scienceantiscience.blogspot.com
Cheers
Joe Meert
ID is a metaphysical proposition, isn’t it, and who knows, it could even be true in some metaphysical sense. For some non-folkish understanding of 'mind' and 'intelligence' that eludes me at present but I don’t think is impossible for clever philosophers to cook up I am prepared to accept the proposition that the universe could be intelligent all by itself, for example. I just don’t think it would make a shred of difference to biology as a discipline if life were designed (whatever that means) or merely gave the appearance thereof. Nothing in biology would change; its results would still be the same. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like Johnson’s politics and his program for cultural “renewal” gives me shivers but he’s neither stupid nor evil but instead a harmless old crank craving metaphysical certainty. And I have to say, reading scientific blogs, many of his opponents are the same way but from a different direction. Is the theory of evolution true? No, it is scientific, there’s a big difference.
ReplyDelete"I just don’t think it would make a shred of difference to biology as a discipline if life were designed (whatever that means) or merely gave the appearance thereof." Trouble is, the IDiots most definitely don't agree with you about that. They claim to be revolutionizing biology.
ReplyDeleteYup, this guy is acting like a politician.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of politicians, McCain will be performing for the Discovery Institute on Feb 23.
...but he’s neither stupid nor evil...
ReplyDeleteEvil is as evil does.
I loved this quote over at Scientia Natura (where I found a link here) about the Johnson Article. Sums the whole bullshit down to a Z:
ReplyDelete(quote) http://scientianatura.blogspot.com
The anti-science crowd over at Uncommon Descent have been wetting their pants in excitement over this article where Philip Johnson:
* Claims that evolution is wrong without any scientific evidence to back up his claim.
* Doesn't offer evidence for ID.
* Preaches about the God of the Bible
* Exposes the religious motivations of ID
* Launches a tirade against 'materialism'
* Claims that ID creationists are being picked on by the 'Darwinian establishment'
* Preaches again.
Re Johnson
ReplyDeleteJohnson is also an HIV/
AIDS denier.
Is the theory of evolution true? No, it is scientific, there’s a big difference.
ReplyDeleteSorry..."truth" only meant "certainty" in the time of Descartes.
"True" means "not in fact wrong" -- not, as you would like it to mean, "could not possibly fail to be wrong."
Of course evolution is true.
Enough said.
Wow and Idiot lawyer talking about science. Results as expected. Poor idiots
ReplyDeleteRe the argument between Anonymous #1 and Anonymous #2 over whether evolution is "true":
ReplyDeleteLet's just say it is sure as heck the best explanation for what we see in the natural world around us, and second place ain't close.