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

_{GilDodgen
November 18, 2007

Darwinism

1}_{Categories
Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

You missed my point, Gil. Whether you call it Darwinism or evolution, the hysteria you mention isn't in evidence once you get away from the heat of the ID/evolution debate. What material changes have been made in the biological sciences community in the past 10 years that ID could claim to have influenced? Perhaps a class or two has been added discussing the controversy in terms of the politics of science, that's about it. What you are calling death throes are but mere pin pricks. Yes, ID has succeeded in getting the attention of the scientists, and they are annoyed, even angered by the attacks (being stabbed by a pin is painful!) but there is still a long, long, long way to go before there's a chance of inflicting a serious flesh wound. Let me make a prediction. Ten years from now, in 2018, the way things are going, things will be just about the same as they are today. There will still be no ID research programs in the universities (not even in privately funded Christian colleges, it seems), and there will still be no changes to the definition of science or to any mainstream scientific text books that are the result of any research involving ID. Simply declaring Darwinism dead doesn't make it so. Nor does the publication of any number of books and articles in the popular press. I'm sure that the production of ID books is outnumbered many times over by all kinds books on pseudoscience, so measuring success based on the size of the royalty checks a subject can generate is useless. I admire your enthusiasm, and respect for Philip Johnson. All I am trying to do is inject a little reality and sense of proportion into the debate. It may be fun to predict the imminent demise of Darwinism, but one can only do so for so long before looking profoundly out of touch with reality.tyke_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Russ I am sure that alcohol is an influence. I do not drink for my bible says that strong drink is a rager and mocker of men. I wonder if there isn't a direct link between between Darwinism or other kinds of atheism and alcoholism. It sure seems that substituting God for wine would follow if you deny that God exists, as do the materialists!!! Does anyone know of any research in this area? It would seem to fit the Theistic Interpretation of ID as formulated by BA.Solon_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Solon's post #10 reminded me of a poll I conducted on a different forum a while back. It asked "What is the largest number of beers you have consumed just prior to posting on this thread?". I don't recall the exact results, but I do remember being surprised at the influence that alcohol sometimes has on Internet disussions.russ_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

I always hear from pro-evolution folks, including my TE friends, that both Denton's and Johnson's books are full of errors and that many of their arguments have been superseded by advances in evolutionary biology. Some of my TE friends who seem knowledgeable and credible to me are downright derisive of both Denton and Johnson. Have either of these books been produced in updated editions to counter those rebuttals, or are there other sources or websites that specifically discuss the "state of the art" and how it is or isn't addressed by Denton's / Johnson's books? Not being a biologist, it's very difficult to know who's on target and who's blowing smoke.becke_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Mats, I'm currently rereading Denton's second book, "Nature's Destiny". It's astonishingly good. It takes the whole idea of anthropic coincidences to the next level: biology itself. Absolutely fascinating.Matteo_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Darwinism is in its evidential, mathematical, intellectual, philosophical, and ethical death throes While I admire your enthusiasm, to say that evolution is in its death throes is a wee bit of a flight of fancy (well, ok, more than a wee bit). If you'll look at that list of adjectives you'll notice that I made no mention of people or how aggressively they will defend the theory or their worldview based upon it, or for how long they will do so. The blind-watchmaker thesis and Darwinian gradualism have been falsified by the evidence. Also note that I made no mention of evolution.GilDodgen_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

I don't know why Phillip Johnson doesn't run for president of this great land. He seems to really have his pulse on the thumb of what the american voter seems to deem important. By pointing out how Darwinism leads to materialism and thus always to atheism and nihilism, he has identified at a single stroke the majority of the underlying plagues holding America at siege today. If we are just monkeys and not beholdon to a creator then why can't we have abortions, it's just like having a pound. Covet your neighbor's wife? Just take her, and steal his TV and guns while you are at it, when you are dead you are dead so manifest your own destiny. Even some Christians like Oprah and Sylvia Browne are infecting people with this poison that substitutes the word of God for the word of man. Darwinism is DEAD DEAD DEAD!!! I for one say that we should burn the corpse on an altar and beg mercy from God for allowing it to blaspheme this long!!! Grace and PeaceSolon_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

I dont consider it very fair to just picture darwinists as incompetent morons. In all fairness, you should maybe describe them as coming to different conclusions from the data. Also the claim that darwinism is dead is not very well supported by reality. If ID is to succeed, ID supporters have to get busy producing results that ACTUALLY contradict dawinists. I am sceptic towards both sides. I am sceptic about ID mostly because all I get is rethoric but no atual data. Darwinism is not dead, Janice.IrrDan_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Michael Denton's book is a masterpiece, and it should be read by everyone interested in learning that the Darwinian religion is a myth. I still have to read Phil's "Darwin on Trial" book. Maybe in December I will grab it, God willing.Mats_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

the wonderful polling numbers ID can get from the American general public are no different from (and possibly worse than) the polling numbers creationism got twenty years ago.
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was first published in the UK in 1985 - 22 years ago. Darwin on Trial was first published in the US in 1991 - 16 years ago. How many critiques of evolution have been published since? I have no real idea. If things were going on as they always had been then, at one book every 6 years or so it should be 2 - 3, but I do believe there have been a few more than that - and that's just considering book-length volumes published in the dead-tree format. For about the last ten years there has been the internet and we can access all sorts of interesting and informative articles by people such as fellows of the Discovery Institute. (BTW - thank you for making those available.) Twenty-eight years ago, when I discovered I had been conned, it was by one of those "accidents" that God arranges from time to time. No-one, but no-one, in this country was questioning evolution at all and certainly not in any way that caught the notice of anyone in any branch of the news media or academia. If any of them had thought it worthwhile to randomly sample the populace to find out what they thought about creationism I believe they would have discovered that no-one in the sample had even heard of it. I certainly hadn't known there was any problem with evolution until my lucky "accident". But now, as I wrote a little while ago, things are very different. Now tour guides in very remote locations are inserting caveats in their spiels that recognise that not everyone will agree with their evolutionary interpretations of everything. Now creationists are regularly vilified in the press and IDers tend to get splattered with tar from the the same brush. The splattering doesn't matter. What's important is that here, at last, the argument is not only out in the open but is well known and well publicised. Even the Weekend Australian magazine had an article on Ken Ham and the AiG Creation Museum a week or so ago. Haven't read it yet but, as someone once said in some form or other, there is no such thing as bad publicity. One way or another I'm looking forward to seeing what the state of things will be at the end of the next decade. My guess (hope?) is that ID will have been recognised more and more as scientific rather than religious, that science will be redefined as the search for truth rather than as the search for materialist explanations for everything (especially including explanations for everything that happened in the past) and that people like Richard Dawkins will be recognised more and more not as "all-knowing scientists" but as ideologues who are doing nothing more than pushing their own religious/political/moral agenda. Of course, knowing human beings, they'll probably take a wrong turn with all their recognising and redefining. Maybe that will be the beginning of the end. It has to happen sometime. Darwinism IS dead. All we have to do now is encourage the corpse to stop twitching.Janice_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

He really has done an amazing service to humanity, hasn't he? While much of the the secular world may be indifferent or openly hostile to his message of truth (for the time-being, at least!), there is no doubt that the seeds he planted will grow to fruition in the fullness of time. And, of course, we at least all know that Dr. Johnson (he is a doctor, right?) will one day be given is much-deserved reward!Hedge_{November 19, 2007
November
11
Nov
19
19
2007
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Hear him, hear him! DoT was earth shattering for me.BarryA_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

I don't think Darwinism is going anywhere anytime soon. But I do think that ID has provided a way to approach and view science - perhaps primarily in a philosophical sense - in a way that allows theists to appreciate, rather than remove, God in the process. In that sense, ID either already has won, or is close to it. The concept of an unguided, random, or purposeless evolution is no longer the only way to approach evolution, even the specific mechanisms. I truly believe that the idea of theists (and Christians in particular) studying science and having their faith bolstered by the amazing processes at work in life, nature, and the universe is what infuriates many people. Remember: Even Dawkins has been on record as seeing evolution as an evangelism tool for atheists. If that status is changed, regardless of whether it's due to a realization that the specific claims of the modern synthesis are incorrect, or simply perception, a valuable tool has been lost to the New Atheists.nullasalus_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Oh, I'm happy just to know that Darwinism is dead, dead, dead, from an intellectual point of view. Whether or not it is sociologically dead is a whole 'nother question. Sure it'll take at least another generation. But I'll probably be alive for two more generations. If the crumbling of a corrupt and intellectually discredited worldview takes a while, well it's a small price to pay for decades of topflight entertainment. In the meantime, if the death of Darwinism is to remain a secret, I'm quite happy to be in on it, instead of being one of the "squares".Matteo_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Darwinism is in its evidential, mathematical, intellectual, philosophical, and ethical death throes
While I admire your enthusiasm, to say that evolution is in its death throes is a wee bit of a flight of fancy (well, ok, more than a wee bit). Outside the friendly confines of the ID community, and the cut and thrust of the ID vs evolution debate, there is very little sign of any impending demise of evolution, not even here in the US which is probably by far the most ID-friendly nation on the planet. We, who are actively interested in ID, can get a distorted view of what's actually happening. There are still virtually no cracks in the edifice of evolution within the biological sciences community where ID is still very much of fringe interest if that. And the wonderful polling numbers ID can get from the American general public are no different from (and possibly worse than) the polling numbers creationism got twenty years ago. That's because it's the same people supporting ID that supported creationism (many of whom still do) for purely religious reasons. Most of them don't know the first thing about ID or evolution. Don't kid yourself. The theory of evolution isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Not in ten years, and probably not in twenty. The odds are is that this is a generational struggle, one which will take decades, if it succeed at all. Unless there is some breakthrough in ID research (that is, after some significant ID research programs have actually been fully staffed and funded by some friendly billionaires... hint, hint), then perhaps there will be room for optimism but I see few signs of that happening any time soon. Sorry to be a buzzkill, but if you keep predicting the imminent demise of evolution on such flimsy evidence, then people will stop listening altogether.tyke_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

I have to appreciate with Phillip Johnson's efforts have led to in a larger sense. Instead of regarding the natural sciences as offering little insight into God (The TE line), or as being evidence against God (Many atheists' line, and possibly some would call this a YEC line), the ID movement has at least promoted looking at science, nature, cosmology, and evolution with an eye for design. Considering the effort Johnson put into promoting a new way to regard science, I think we've only just seen the bare beginning of the great things this means for science and theists in general.nullasalus_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

I second the thought. That book and Darwin's Black Box opened up this hardware/software engineer's mind to recognizing the subterfuge that is Darwinism, and even more importantly, filling me with even more awe for the Creation and its Architect. I also had the pleasure of hearing Johnson speak in Palo Alto back in '97, I think. One heck of a nice guy.Matteo_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

I have to admit that "Darwin on Trial" impacted me like a ton of bricks, I like you Gil was utterly shocked that I had been lied to for all those years by the science I dearly loved. No telling how many people you have impacted Mr. Johnson. If you read this Mr. Johnson thank you from the bottom of my heart.bornagain77_{November 18, 2007
November
11
Nov
18
18
2007
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply