Thanks to Phillip Johnson (or, Darwinism in its Death Throes)

_{Gil Dodgen

November 18, 2007

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

On a private listserve which shall remain unnamed, I posted the following to Phillip Johnson. Phil deserves a tremendous amount of gratitude for his insight and courage.

Dear Phillip,

Neither you nor I have any notion of the magnitude of the ripple effects that have emanated from Darwin On Trial, but I can tell you this: That book cut through all the Darwinian story-telling presented as science like a razor. Darwin On Trial, combined with Michael Denton’s first book, made me slap myself on the forehead and proclaim, “Holy mackerel, I’ve been conned!”

Darwinism is in its evidential, mathematical, intellectual, philosophical, and ethical death throes — thus all the hysteria on the part of its adamant proponents, whose meaning in life (or lack thereof) is inextricably linked to it.

Thanks for your contribution in helping to reveal and clarify the essential issues, which have been, and continue to be, veiled in a pedantic smokescreen by Dawinists.

Gil

Comments

As far as I can tell it seems that I am being accused of being insincere and disingenuous, and that i am trying to be someone that I am not. I don't know what sort of test or criterion would resolve such a question. We are all here on our own free will, which is a gift from God. I have gathered that this must be a common problem on this weblog, and I have seen it on others (the liberals and darwinists nearly destroyed World Magazine before they got control of it and kicked most of them off). The Bible says that we shall know them by their fruits. I submit to you that this is the only measure of a man, and it is still just a man made measurement and doesn't have anything to do with reality. Just like the rest of what I am trying to say. The samaritan took the man at his word in the road, all I can say is that this is the model god has given us and attempting to steal or discredit the glory of god by saying 'We Don't Know Who The Designer Is' is not something that most christians I know would want to get involved in. And that is true no matter how many bacteria you have mounted on slides or how many E coli bacteria it takes to fill up a commnion cup. I just don't understand the perverse reliance on facts-falsely-so-called here when the point of ID as I understand it is 'WE CAN NEVER KNOW' and that it is ungodly to keep trying, when we have a way out and that is to submit to the will of God.Solon_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

This is becoming a very interesting epistemological problem! Solon insists that he(?) is sincere in what he says here. Several other posters -- including Paula, Webwanderer, Apollos, and Forthekids -- have expresses skepticism about Solon's sincerity. It has been suggested by several posters that Solon is a "sock-puppet." (link for those unfamiliar with the term.) I wonder, now: Solon, do you understand what exactly you're being accused of here? The rest of you: what test or criterion would you be willing to propose in order to resolve the question? For that matter, is this an empirical question at all? Where's GEM and his "fallacy of selective hyper-skepticism" when we need him? [For the record: I am, for now, agnostic as to whether Solon is sincere or a sock-puppet. It does not seem incredible to me, as it does to many here, that he is sincere. Then again, I might be credulous; others here may be picking up on something that I'm not tuned into. But I can't think of a test that would allow me to tell one way or the other.]Carl Sachs_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

Appolos I am sorry I have offended you. I am a phony, only because I am redeemed through the blood of Jesus Christ am I even worth a jot and tittle. I would never attempt to classify ID as religion. In the broadest sense, it is not, it is the explicit formulation of the book of Genesis and the gospel of Jesus Christ. What I am afraid that it is, in this narrow sense that we see here, just another vareity of materialist science that is attempting to glean information about the Divine through a fallen creation. No need to go through that tortuous exercise, we have the bible. No amount of 'evidence' or measurements of material things can ever get you past the material and to the transcendent Reality. Only the Bible can do that. If ID is just going to play materialist straight man then I hope they do not fool the christian community. You want ID to be non-christian, so be it. I still think that you are the minority, since the spokesmen of ID so far have been clear on the record about where their sympathies lie. But by letting this snake in the henhouse, this reliance upon man made knowledge and reason, these people are setting themselves up for a fall. And the tragedy with that is all of the souls that will be lost to the cause of Christ because of that, just because some egotistical self-important men let their self righteousness get in the way of serving God. Don't let ID be Mammon, Apolos. I don't expect you to address my arguments, for they shouldn't be addressed to me in a public forum but to God in your prayer closet. As much as we all want materialism and atheism and darwinism and liberalism to be dead and gone, we can't let that get in the way of serving Christ by example. and I submit that the example being given here on this board of 'show them with science' is exactly the wrong example. We need to show them the bible. Appolos, are you a christian? do you believe the bible is inerrant and true and Gods Word?Solon_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Solon, you are a phony. Trying to classify ID as religion is a Darwinist tactic, used by materialists and many TEs alike. Your caricature of a fundamentalist is just plain bad. Your marriage of the two is atrocious! Your feign offense is reminiscent of other rude visitors to the site, most of which have been booted. I for one am not fooled. Trying to address your arguments is pointless. You're merely throwing garbage against the wall here to see what sticks. You were confronted several times with being a fake on this thread. You chose to pretend you didn't understand. It was almost comical. Only when a couple of others defended you did you choose to act offended. I could almost see you pressing the back of your hand to your forehead.Apollos_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

magnan what is narrow and sectarian about pointing out that Dembski Johnson Wells Behe et al are all christians and have made statements on the record that agree with my assertions COMPLETELY. Do they deny my words? Do you? Or do you just think they shouldn't be said out loud? Peter denied Christ. 3 times. How many times will you? I'm trying to tell you people who are saying Ixnay on the EsusJay that you will never convince Americans to get behind something that claims to oppose mateiralism and atheism but is just another version of wishywashy materialism that uses the same kinds of things to measure and the same ways of thinking that the darwinists do. BEcause we KNOW they are wrong: not because of any stupid measurements of 'facts' given by some sweatered professor in some book, but because the WORD OF GOD says so. The Bible is all the fact we need, and if it is not in there it is decidedly not a fact. 'Science' is ultimately a losing proposition. There is nothing that can be known from science that is worth knowing: all that matters is whether or not you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and the rest is irrelevant. Science can tell you nothing about this because the materialists have stacked the deck. Why bother? It's like trying to join a fraternity that you know is stupid and will haze you and maybe sodomize you but you feel like you have to join before you can tell them how dumb they are. Sorry. My God gave us another way out. I am wondering what the relationship between ID as is formulated here and ID as is formulated by Dembski and Johnson is. Clearly no one here that I have interacted with yet is on the same page as we are.Solon_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Solon: "The bible is real and true and I understand that this fact makes some people upset, but I never considered that those people would be here at a site that purports to be about Intelligent Design and thus the bible and Christianity." Solon: "WE KNOW WHO THE DESIGNER IS: JESUS CHRIST." This aptly summarizes your point of view. This is expressed as fact and your revealed truth when it is in reality your opinion. My impression is that UD is not a narrow sectarian fundamentalist Christian blog, and members should try mostly to stick to scientific and sociological issues. The discourse here in this blog necessarily is based on reason, logic and science, not theology and holy books. Of course I am open to correction on this. An even cursory reading of the major ID literature will show that your statements are not those of the major ID advocates, who clearly show that ID is primarily science not fundamentalist Christian religion. ID is true because of evidence and science, whatever the nature of the intelligence. This has been repeatedly pointed out here and in the literature.magnan_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

It appears that the people here believe that Intelligent Design is not a theory compatible with christianity. I find that deeply troubling, especially since most of the ID folks I have heard about claim to be christians in public. I simply state my beliefs that Intelligent Design is a testimony to the Biblical Creation and is predicted by the Bible given to us by the Creator and I am attacked by people here as an impostor or some kind of troll or teen ager making trouble. I will hold my tongue and not answer you in kind but I and my church will be praying for you. And I see this problem everywhere. We don't need 'scientific' arguments in this full frontal assault on darkness. Scientific arguments play right into the hands of the darwinists who have defined what is evidence and what is not. Since our thesis is that nothing you can measure or see means anything, since Creation is ultimately the merciful whim of a loving and just God, it is ridiculous to assume the same tack as the darwinists and struggle to discern meaning in the pathetic details of human understanding. The bible is real and true and I understand that this fact makes some people upset, but I never considered that those people would be here at a site that purports to be about Intelligent Design and thus the bible and Christianity. I have read many articles about Christianity here before I gained the confidence to comment in this tight-knit community. it appears that the post-modern influenza has even infiltrated here, a place where one would suppose that fellow believers could fellowship together without the divisiveness that comes from confronting human knowledge with human facts, facts that are always up for debate and ephemeral. If Intelligent Design denies the bible, then Intelligent Design is dead, just as dead as darwinism and atheism and nihilistic materialism. The goal cannot be reached with out acknowledging our debt to the Creator of the bible, and all this postmodern mumbling about we don't know who the designer is IS LYING. IF YOU SAY THE DESIGNER COULD BE ALIENS YOU ARE LYING. WE KNOW WHO THE DESIGNER IS: JESUS CHRIST. And that will be the same no matter what kind of irrelevant motors are in some invisible blob of a cell or how many times AIDS multiplies itself in a drug user or homosexual. If you say that these material things actually constitute evidence, YOU ARE LYING. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD AND THAT IS ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WE NEED. ALL ELSE IS SHIFTING SAND.Solon_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Well I read Solon's comments again to see if I am overlooking something. The only idea of his I find wrong or objectionable is the notion that Darwinism is dead. It is clearly not dead but that's no reason to vote him off the island. Other than that I think he makes some very relevant points, at least from a Christian perspective. And if understanding or even caring about the structure of a cell is required to support ID I'm afraid I should be voted off the island too. Not everyone wants to be a scientist or have a micro-biologists understanding of cells and chemicals. Ok, I'm done on this subject. Sorry if I seemed to get carried away. TimToolbox_Tim_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Yeah, well anyway, I'm guessing that UD is dealing with more than one sock puppet at the moment. nuf saidForthekids_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Well personally I don't have the time (or the interest) to study bacteria and things I cannot see. That doesn't mean others should not. And Joseph's comment "But if you try to interject your religion into Intelligent Design, I will fight that also." suggests he's going to fight Phillip E Johnson and many other ID advocates. There are often very well intentioned but hypocritical and contradictory statements made on this blog and it's very frustrating. And it appeared that Solon is being ganged up on for expressing his faith. It's almost like as long as you are a BIG time ID advocate and have written a few books you can claim and talk about your faith, but if you are a simple ID supporter you're supposed to stay in the closet and never mention God or Jesus. I've seen admins here delete comments about God and Jesus yet you never see them delete or criticize comments like that coming from Dr Dembski. That bothers me. TimToolbox_Tim_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Daniel King, Intolerant and rude? How intolerant and rude is it to pretend to be an imaginary caricature for the purpose of insulting an entire group of people whose only crime is to seek the genuine truth of their origin? I have little interest in religious dogma, but I have considerable interest in understanding how life developed and what fair minded scientists have to say on it. I’m no scientist, but I do understand the distinction between truth and belief. As a layman I depend on open and honest presentation of facts and information relating to these essential questions of life. Intentionally muddying the water with stereo-typical religious bigotry only distorts the honest discussions that are necessary for genuine understanding.Webwanderer_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Oh, come on...I'm a Christian who has no problem proclaiming my belief in Christ and Truth, but this dude made the statement that we don't need to waste our time studying... "bacteria and things you can’t even see! Those things don’t even matter and it is a waste of time to study them!" That is utterly ridiculous, and someone is obviously having a grand time with this little skit. If not, then I'm truly sorry, but this just reeks of sock puppetry.Forthekids_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

I think this Phillip E Johnson quote is highly appropriate: "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy" http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/world2.html "The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus." http://web.archive.org/web/20010508032051/http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs4995.htm Again, why the persecution of Solon? And Joseph, do you plan on fighting Mr Johnson too? TimToolbox_Tim_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

I don't know this Solon person but if Solon is a sock puppet is Phillip E Johnson one also? This is the frustrating part of the Intelligent Design movement. The tent is big until you proclaim your love for Jesus and believe (know) the "intelligent designer" is God Almighty. When expressing what you believe to be the Truth is a form of sock puppetry we're in deep trouble. And I too am not one to sit around and quibble over science talk, I'm admittedly no scientist and have a hard time following all the cell, DNA, RNA, etc discussions. But I know in my heart who the "intelligent designer" is and I don't need a science book to validate that Truth. Atheism and Darwinism are the enemy, not honest Christians. Does that make me a sock puppet too? Watching Christians try and crucify another Christian is unsettling to say the least. What am I missing here, what has Solon said that is so objectionable? TimToolbox_Tim_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

"Americans don’t need more scientific mumbo jumbo, they need to know that the bible is true and provides a route to salvation, not any trivial nonsense about bacteria and things you can’t even see! Those things don’t even matter and it is a waste of time to study them! LOL!...Good grief, I can't take this anymore. Nobody actually says things like this in real life do they???! Can we be done with the sock puppet?Forthekids_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

I'm fascinated by the assertion that Solon is a parody or caricature.Carl Sachs_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Solon, My guess is that you are a parody. Either way you are not accurately representing ID.Jehu_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Solon, It is obvious from your posts that you have little understanding of Intelligent Design science. It is also obvious that you have little understanding of the essential teachings of Jesus. And it is mostly obvious that you have little understanding of the fundamental nature of truth or the qualities of mind necessary to recognize it.
Obvious? What seems obvious to me is that someone is being intolerant and rude. And vague...Daniel King_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Solon, It is obvious from your posts that you have little understanding of Intelligent Design science. It is also obvious that you have little understanding of the essential teachings of Jesus. And it is mostly obvious that you have little understanding of the fundamental nature of truth or the qualities of mind necessary to recognize it. Give up this ruse of yours; it is far too transparent to be believable.Webwanderer_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Joseph thank you for your comments. We don't have to worry about our religion being shown to be fiction, for we possess the One Truth. You are right that religions are man made so fallible. But But Intelligent Design has been called is the logos of the Gospel, and we know this is true. To try to separate ID from the Bible is foolish because the bible is the instruction book for life. Intelligent Design is not my religion, I follow Jesus. If Intelligent Design is going to divorce itself from God then it won't get very far in what I see is the main goal: to eliminate and put to death the materialist mythology in our culture. We must reclaim our children and this demands that they have a sound biblical basis for understanding the supposed facts of the world. Americans don't need more scientific mumbo jumbo, they need to know that the bible is true and provides a route to salvation, not any trivial nonsense about bacteria and things you can't even see! Those things don't even matter and it is a waste of time to study them! We should be focusing on getting darwinism out of the public schools and not on trying to replace it with some other godless 'theory'.Solon_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Solon, If (somehow) the Bible were shown to be a work of fiction, Intelligent Design would not be fazed. If (somehow) Jesus was shown to be a fictitious character, Intelligent Design would not be fazed. On the other hand if (somehow) the Bible were proven to be the "Word of 'God'", IDists would say, "That explains why we observe what we do." And personally I don't think that any one religion has it right. But if the Bible gives you comfort I will not try to take that away from you. I will fight for your right to practice the religion of your choice. But if you try to interject your religion into Intelligent Design, I will fight that also.Joseph_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Instead, it is a question of how one looks at and seeks to explain the empirical data.
Which is precisely what young-Earth creationists have been saying for years. I have heard it out of the mouths of those from Answers In Genesis themselves. "We don't need to do our own research, it's all a matter of correctly interpreting the existing empirical data." If we want ID to be taken more seriously by the scientific community than a bunch of young-earthers, then this will not fly. It smacks of being a lame excuse used by a bunch of armchair critics. Sorry to be so harsh, but I've seen enough of this drivel from creationists over the years to know that it simply doesn't work. It seems to me from this thread that the current state of ID is good enough to make firm believers of those who are already inclined towards non-materialist answers to how life arose. That's great, but the amount of triumphalist rhetotic about how that means suddenly, somehow Darwinism is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD is simply ridiculous. I am sure that the likes of Richard Hoagland is utterly convinced that naturalistic explanations for the Face on Mar are DEAD DEAD DEAD too, but who in NASA even bothers to give his theories the time of day? Simply saying it, or believing it youself doesn't make it true. If Darwinism is wrong, then it was wrong yesterday and it will be wrong tomorrow, but that doesn't change the fact that outside of ID-friendly confines, barely anything has changed at all. Why is the fuss over ID any different than the fuss over creationism twenty years ago? Creationists have been declaring the demise of Darwin ever since the first copy of his book hit the stores, and they have been wrong every time. Please forgive me for saying that I am highly skeptical of people declaring victory for ID already. The battle has barely even begun. It's sort of like Churchill declaring victory over the Germans in 1939. As it stands today, ID is of little threat to the prevailing theory of life. It may be an interesting hypothesis (with a number of true believers, certainly) but there has to be some of its own empirical research for things to move forward. Hijacking other people's research and slapping on your own interpretation is what creationists do, not serious scientists. Declaring triumphant victory will only delay any progress that ID makes. It smacks of overconfidence and the belief that we only have to sit around and wait for the scientists to come to their senses. And that is DEAD DEAD DEAD wrong.tyke_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

Joseph I don't understand why you would say these things. The Word is the only true account of origins that we can ever have, and to rest our apologetics on material things is to attempt to justify the means by the end desired. The means are what must go: materialism and atheism pollute knowledge. To speak of design and pretending that we don't know that the designer is the One True God is as Apollos says dishonest and disingenuous. We know who the Designer is, and we would know that no matter what just so stories that the Darwinists tell. The details about blood clots and bacteriums are irrelevant and in my view a distraction from the Great Commission. I believe that Phillip Johnson believes this also, and Dr Professor Dembski has said similar things in the past. if this turns out to not be true I am afraid that you will turn away many people who are interested in reclaiming our country and our educational system from the liberals and atheists. i guess I would say, if ID is not biblical, tell me now and I will withdraw my support for it and find something that is.Solon_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Appolos I guess I don't understand what you are saying. I respect character, it is part of the Way. Walking the walk and talking the talk as we are commanded. If you think I am leading people away from Christ that is a serious charge and I will have to re-evaluate my actions. But I am playing no games, I assure you. That shows poor character in my book, the Teacher said Let your yay be yay and your nay be nay and I try to hold to this. I am very sincere and ingenuous.Solon_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

If Intelligent Design Theory turns it’s back on the bible it will just be like any other human contrivance, an abomination before the Lord and just another artifact of the Fall. Let’s not let this happen.
The leaves on my lawn are an artifact of (the) Fall. :) Let's leave the Bible out of Intelligent Design. We should make sure that happens. Intelligent Design is an a-religious PoV. I aim to make sure it stays that way.Joseph_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

My only attack on you is this: you are a bad actor. You also don't understand the character you're trying to portray, so he comes across as insincere and disingenuous. Bottom line: your disrespect for your character comes through in your portrayal. You don't understand his motivations, nor share in his beliefs in any meaningful way. You've reduced him to a stereotype -- made satire of him.Apollos_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Those of us with an interest in ID and a science background do wonder: What’s holding back the ID research program?
Resources- as in money and people. Scientists need to get paid and they need money to buy the necessary tools, as well as a place to conduct their lab experiments. But before that ID needs more scientists. And before that will happen ID needs to allowed an open discussiuon in academia. Evolutionary biologists have had university and gov't funding for decades and not one of them can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. IOW what is holding evolutionary scientists back? I know what that is- the answer they are looking for only exists in their imagination.Joseph_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Appolos Apparently I have said something that disagreed with you. I make no apologies for standing for Christ first and I am sure that if I am in the wrong I will apologize. I am a fallen human after all. It seems to me that you are attacking me for not having a vocabulary full of big words. I told you I am not a scientist and I can hardly follow some of the arguments on this blog. I am a Christian though and that means we have a command to go forth and spread the Good Word. If ID is not The Good Word please let me know and I will find other people to fellowship with.Solon_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Solon, Once again, you appear to be a caricature -- developed on whim, without much thought given to consistency of position or vocabulary. You also vaguely sound like some others who visit from time to time, from a certain scientific affiliation. You are either trying to bait people here into engaging your religious arguments, or merely trying to tint the pages of this blog with your deception.Apollos_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Apollos I am not here to spread the spirit of divisiveness but to implore my fellow believers that ID is only a worthwhile effort if it brings more souls to Christ. We should never bog ourselves down in the mire that is scientific naturalism. I have never proclaimed to be anything but a sinner and I fully grant the expertise that the great scientists of this generation claim as is their due. As i have said I am just an interested christian who is fully behind the desire to stamp out liberal athiest materialism that is behind darwinism and to reclaim our country from these forces of evil. But I fear the ID movement will follow in the same trap of trying to 'explain' things in the same way the darwinists do, at the end of the day it's not a 'Design Inference' that is important but salvation through Jesus Christ. I apologize if I have been unclear or rude.Solon_{November 20, 2007
November
11
Nov
20
20
2007
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply